Multiple actions per turn vs one action per turn

I've recently been working on a strategy game called Star Command, where each player gets to take three actions per round, but in each round, players take turns taking their actions. They place one marker on the sector where action is happening to indicate their action and that's it. Play continues around the circle until all players have taken their first action, after which the cycle starts over. After 3 cycles, everyone can reclaim their markers and gain resource bonuses for what they've captured, etc.

What's neat about this system is that it allows you to have less downtime, even though it's a serious strategy game. However, it also means that your plans are more easily foiled, and my marker system is apparently confusing sometimes. But I like it because it keeps things moving, rather than having to wait for a player who takes forever because they want to plan every element of their turn.

However, actions-based turns aren't bad either when you're playing a shorter or cooperative game, because a little downtime doesn't kill anyone if it's 45 minutes. If the game is two hours, maybe you should consider moving the turns along a little faster.

I think you have to balance an individual turn length against a feeling of progress. If it takes six actions to get a tangible result, then spreading it over many turns feels a bit of drudgery. However, if an action has a big game effect, it alienates the non-active players without being able to respond.

Other considerations:
Round events... if there are events at the end of a round, then the size of the action pool needs to scale to the game effect or players are going to feel knocked about rather than strategic.

Delightfully agonizing decisions... multiple actions means that one build-to is getting extra actions and making the decision of when to commit resources to create more actions versus making direct game effecting actions are good sorts of decisions to have.

I have been experimenting with this as well.

Bottom lines (summary):
- Multiple Actions need to be balanced on the game.
- The game mechanics need to be balanced in turn on the Multiple Actions.

---It looks like that it depends a lot on the game mechanics too.---
So mine are completely adapted to the game that I am working on.

Here is my concept (please feel free to comment):

My very first version allowed all units to take 1 action each round, movement or attack. This created complete chaos and was quickly discarded. I also don't know of games that do use this. Think of it like having all chess pieces do 1 thing each round.

I wanted balance between attacks and movement.
Thus a limit was needed in actions, I decided on 6.
Further more I wanted players to take actions whenever they wanted. Meaning:
1 player is in turn forced playing at least 1 action point. Then other players can interfere while paying action points as well, but those are not forced.
So, a "free" play for all players, any time.

I reduced the amount of actions to 6 / Round.
The 6 is upgradable by various means. But you cannot spend actions on increasing this. Buildings things like an "Action Increaser" can be done at the end of a Round.
Other means are with Event Cards. But those are Random, and have Random effects.

I am not sure about these rules yet...

The main action costs for each player are:
- 1 Action Point (AP) for movement.
- 1 AP for an attack.
- No movement or an attack while the player is in turn, results in 1 AP discarded for that Round.
- 1 AP for defending (not forced).
- 1 AP for moving "away" with a reduced damage effect (not forced).
- 1 AP for intercepting a moving player with a reduced damage effect for the interceptor (only one squad/player).
- 2 APs for moving and attacking with a reduced damage effect for both players. (Comparable with an Assault, which costs 1 AP + the Event Card)
- 2 APs for defending and moving with "an extra" reduced damage effect for both players.
- If the Squad already paid an APs, then the next one costs: what has been paid + what has to be paid = the total AP costs.

So players now have choices in how to spend their AP. And they are "free" to decide when and how. There are still random turns of actions per round.

Having these rules also allows players to do attacks which are normally impossible to succeed. However, that player simply does less that round. So it has to be a specific situation.

---Thus the game needs to be adapted by having multiple actions in turn.---
And often, new situations arise and need to be monitored...
New rules need to be added too, to keep things going.

Since normal combat allows short ranged to fire first. An Assault with short ranged units can be very effective. However, if the victim decides to defend. He/she might also decide to intercept instead. Which can often be a more useful approach.

When attacking moving players. You start looking at each region where they move though. And you deal with it in that order. Meaning, longer ranged units might fire before your short ranged units.

When both players move, [attacker and victim]. The Attacker moves first. So the victim deals with each region where the attacker move through, first. Once the attacker arrives. Then victim will move away. Where the attacker deals with each region, where through the victim moves. Mostly resulting in firing all projectiles at the first region.
However, this way one might suggest:
That there is no extra reduced effect for both players. But normally there is already a one time reduction if the defender moves away if the attacker stands still or vice versa. That is why the reduction is done twice when both players move. Just for balance.
The second suggestion that I discard is:
Having both players move at the same time and keeping the distance the same. This will be to complex. And could result in having no combat at all.
Fast units targeted by long range (speed/Range = 7) already have a hit chance of only 28%. With both players moving, it is only 8%. Still enough to kill one or two units though. But this 8% can be compared with keeping the distance. It is as if the defending player thinks: damn, need to move, I am under fire.

Range of flying projectiles are compared with the Speed of targeted moving units. Lowest counts and is a reduction with 5/6th with each dice used. Speed/Range = 7 means having to roll 7 dice for each projectile targeted at this unit.

Bottom lines (summary):
- Multiple Actions need to be balanced on the game.
- The game mechanics need to be balanced in turn on the Multiple Actions.

You might want to read one of my article:

http://bgd.lariennalibrary.com/index.php?n=DesignArticle.Article-ActionS...

That compares the difference between multiplying actions vs making proportional actions.

It reminds me of Conflict where you had the option to move all units or 3 units.

Move all unit could be dealy to the opposing player, while move 3 units gave time to your opponent to react, but you could only resolve 1 front at a time. In a BG, you need a way to keep track of played units to use the move all units mode.

An idea I had for a similar game is that you activate units around a commander. When yo move a commander, all units around also moves. The more units, larger battlefield, the more commanders you have to compensate. Killing an ennemy commander would hinder your opponent.

Does the nb of unit increases or reduces as the game progress?

Similar to the commander rule, you could get for example 1 action for each 8 units in play. So the bigger your army, the more actions you get.

Heroscape has this 3 action system, but where the same units could be played multiple times. It could be nastly, but it's similar to the move 3 units.

Another idea of mine was to have a nb of action for air, ground and sea units. So first players moves air, then they move ground, then they move sea.

Even if the move X units seems unrealistic because everything happens on the same time, it creates an interesting dynamic of where does the player want to put some presure.

You might put moves on a flank A, but I value so much flank B, than by attacking that flank B it forces you to spend moves from flank A to B.

Maybe there is anotehr twist that you could find to this mechanic.

The big risk with adding multiple action options is Analysis Paralysis (AP).

In games like Pandemic or Forbidden Desert, you get 4 actions, but it's usually pretty obvious what the best action is since there's always an element of "you could lose at any moment".

In games like Catan or Risk, however, where you essentially have unlimited things to do on your turn, there are always players who take FOREVER trying to figure out what to do because there are so many options.

Ticket to Ride is a good example someone mentioned because you essentially have two options - draw, or place trains - and that's it. Most of the thinking actually happens during other players' turns. This system of having just one action helps keeps things rolling, but also serves the game's mechanics by not allowing someone to totally screw other players by saving a few sets and then play them all at once, possibly blocking off certain paths permanently.