So, there has been a lot of talk about alternating initiative. Namely, one turn one player has initiative and the next the other does.

This is complicated, and while some methods of tracking who has initiative, how do you account for bids? Should you be able to bid and get something?

Why not just alternate activations per ship at a particular initiative level. So, if we have two players, each with 3 ini 5 ships, the player that won the bid would move second overall, but it would alternate ships. Player 1 moves an ini 5 ship, then player 2, then back to 1 and so on. This is the way some other games I've seen do it and it creates another layer of strategy.

If you have a ship that wouldn't be engaging for a turn, it could move first and give an advantage to your other ships. Choosing who moves when will add more strategy without over complicating the game.

4 minutes ago, Stinger07 said:

Why not just alternate activations per ship at a particular initiative level. So, if we have two players, each with 3 ini 5 ships, the player that won the bid would move second overall, but it would alternate ships. Player 1 moves an ini 5 ship, then player 2, then back to 1 and so on. This is the way some other games I've seen do it and it creates another layer of strategy.

If you have a ship that wouldn't be engaging for a turn, it could move first and give an advantage to your other ships. Choosing who moves when will add more strategy without over complicating the game.

I like the premise but... I believe this would cause more problems than solutions.

In your scenario (Player One has who doesn't have intitative has 2 I5's the player with intitative has 1 I5 the player with intitative is at a major disadvantange. Say I have Tallie and Rey (both I5) I chose to block with Tallie (I don't have intitative) the player moving second with "inititative" is penalized and at an disadvantage while I can use my ships to block and setup shots. ANd with Rey as the example she would the get fully modded shots and the ability to do as she pleases.

I'd make sure I had as many I5's in my list and always chose to lose inititative I'd always be the player in control

I play almost all my casual games with alternating initiative. Specifically, it switches every turn, there is no option to hold onto it.

The player with the lowest squad points (biggest bid) gets to choose who gets initiative first, so there is still some strategic value in it (planning which turn you expect will be the first combat turn and trying to engage on that turn, or trying to guess what your opponent might do to try and hasten/delay that turn). Most bids are just a point or two, mostly when there is literally nothing left you can or would want to spend them on for any reason.

We don't find it particularly complicated or confusing and it makes squad building much more relaxed since you don't feel compelled to try and guess how many points you have to waste trying for a bid.

if I wanted to experiment to increase the value of the bid again I might change it so you roll for initiative every turn, but the player who won the bid gets some statistical advantage. Example: roll 3 dice, most eyeballs wins. Bid winner gets a free reroll of one die or rolls two dice and his third die is an automatic focus result or something, depending on how significant you want it to be. My personal stance though is that I hate the current bidding system and I am happy to just alternate and be done with it.

1 hour ago, Stinger07 said:

This  is complicated, and while some methods of tracking who has initiative, how do you account for bids? Should  you be able to bid and get something?

Why not just alternate activations per ship at a particular initiative level. So, if we have two players, each with 3 ini 5 ships, the player that won the bid would move second overall, but it would alternate ships. Player 1 moves an ini 5 ship, then player 2, then back to 1 and so on. This is the way some other games I've seen do it  and it creates another layer of strategy.

Your solution is infinitely more complicated than just passing an initiative token once per turn. When you start staggering activations, especially with multiple ships at the same initiative, you are inviting all kinds of problems with ships activating out of order, or forgetting to activate ships in the corrct sequence. Imagine two tie swarms trying to keep track of both their ship activations as well as their opponent's simultaneously. No thanks.

I'll also add that FFG specifically has lots of history to draw on for alternating 1st player between rounds. Conquest, aGoT, Destiny, and L5R pop immediately to mind, Conquest by far having the most efficient method.

Well now that the player token has two sides you could have it like that. Maybe the under bid decides if he wants initiative 1st or second turn.

I would like to see what happens if it is handled like chess. Sure you can keep using only the queen, but you over-extend yourself.

Biggest difference is the limited space in chess. That also forces you to not always move the same piece.

2 hours ago, hargleblarg said:

Your solution is infinitely more complicated than just passing an initiative token once per turn. When you start staggering activations, especially with multiple ships at the same initiative, you are inviting all kinds of problems with ships activating out of order, or forgetting to activate ships in the corrct sequence. Imagine two tie swarms trying to keep track of both their ship activations as well as their opponent's simultaneously. No thanks.

Alternating and variable unit activation is a great feature of many games and I love it. It works best when units have some sort of tojen on the table that indicates who still needs to go.

That said, I think it would be a clunky add-on within I levels for XWM. I would much prefer variable initiative for the round based on a roll AFTER dials are set. Bid can add a die or mod in some way. I prefer determining I after dials as it add more risk and I think that is fun.

I mean, Battletech has been doing alternate activations for 30 years and it's explained in like 3 paragraphs. It's never been one of the issues that plague that game.

5 hours ago, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

Alternating and variable unit activation is a great feature of many games and I love it. It works best when units have some sort of tojen on the table that indicates who still needs to go.

The dials could serve. I.e., you must remove the dial from the play area when the ship activates.

I like your idea, Stinger07.

5 hours ago, Stinger07 said:

I mean, Battletech has been doing alternate activations for 30 years and it's explained in like 3 paragraphs. It's never been one of the issues that plague that game.

From what I understand Initiative was a die roll, you wanted to go last because then you can position yourself behind the rear armor and attack the weak spot while keeping your back away.

13 hours ago, Marinealver said:

From what I understand Initiative was a die roll, you wanted to go last because then you can position yourself behind the rear armor and attack the weak spot while keeping your back away.

Yes, but it still meant you alternated "activations" each turn. Typically you would reserve your fastest mech so it moved last and could get behind enemies and you know where they are. Slower, less maneuverable mechs would move first, but not always.

It was a fundamental part of the strategy.

Whoever moved second was decided once per turn, and players could get bonuses to help them win initiative, but you always alternated activations.

26 minutes ago, Stinger07 said:

Yes, but it still meant you alternated "activations" each turn. Typically you would reserve your fastest mech so it moved last and could get behind enemies and you know where they are. Slower, less maneuverable mechs would move first, but not always.

It was a fundamental part of the strategy.

Whoever moved second was decided once per turn, and players could get bonuses to help them win initiative, but you always alternated activations.

but initiative was tied more to the mech, and not the pilot.