"The "Command Radius"" Topic

Many, many games have some sort of "command radius" mechanic.

1. In most games, the units have to stay within X distance of their superior officer, otherwise they suffer penalties.

2. In some games, the radius is flexible, by measuring the distance from unit to commander, and then calculating the difficulty of doing something as a result.

3. In some games (especially older designs) you send a little courier galloping off with new orders for the subordinates, so although there's no official "radius," effectively however far the courier can move in one turn becomes an increment of "radius."

We've all used perfectly reasonable-sounding rationalizations as to why this should be so: The limits of voice command or visibility, for instance, create a distinction between those units the officer can see or talk to, and those he can't. Or perhaps the distance creates a lag between the commander's decision-making time and the local man-on-the-spot's reaction time.

I could go on, but I won't. You've heard it all a thousand times.

Recently I've found myself questioning why we need these mechanics at all. I keep reading accounts of battles in which units are split up and sent all over the place, across huge battlefields, and there never seems to be any indication that it impairs their combat effectiveness in any way. (And certainly doesn't impair their movement, or the ability of the units in question to react to changing local events in front of them.)

The willy-nilly dispersal of Federal reinforcements at Gettysburg, for instance, would be impossible – or at least fatally stupid – under most wargame rules. But obviously it worked in the real battle! Wellington's army at Waterloo certainly didn't seem impaired by its scrambled-egg deployment, nor by the splitting-up of its reserves and throwing them in piecemeal, as needed, throughout the day. The Germans appear to have fought the entire second half of WW2 with mish-mash ad-hoc units, scattered across the map.

And we can find plenty of examples at the tactical level, too. Time and again we read accounts of small-scale actions in the horse-and-musket era that shatter our pre-conception of tightly-packed units being careful to maintain their alignment. "Colonel von Schlumpf ordered two companies of the 1st Battalion to occupy the churchyard, and to take one of the howitzers with them… He then sent the rest of the battalion back to the wheatfield with orders to halt at the stream…." and so on.

So I'm throwing this out for discussion: could we dispense with the concept of a "command radius" altogether. Is there really a compelling reason for it?

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler (and perfectly within historical logic) to say, simply, that whatever "battle" we're doing is encompassed by this table. Obviously, the forces set up on this table are the ones the generals have chosen to fight in this area, and thus the ones they must have some confidence in, with regard to command & control. Thus, everybody's command radius is simply, "The Table."

If you want to represent the possibility of a broad outflanking move, then use a bigger table, or a smaller game-scale. Or allow the players to send units off-table – at which point you'd need some "out of command" mechanism, I suppose.

Finally, if we want to note that some armies, in some circumstances, perform better than others, that seems to demand that command ability be worked into individual unit performances in some way – not simply by measuring the distance to Army HQ. For example, Wellington can get away with deploying his army in a confusing way because he's a very active commander with a good staff, and he chose his ground carefully the day before… Whereas the Allies at Austerlitz can't get away with it, because they're confused, recently arrived on the scene, with all sorts of command problems, etc. Again, that could be a Table-Wide judgment call, not a "command radius."

INCOMING!!!!!!

The Germans appear to have fought the entire second half of WW2 with mish-mash ad-hoc units, scattered across the map.

One could, if one were so inclined, rationalise this by saying (accurately) that German NCOs had roles similar to junior officers in other armies. Whether or not one would be correct is another matter. As for the rest? Dunno, but I can see this being a long thread

I probably shouldn't have made any attempt to include historical examples, because people will get all distracted arguing about whether or not those specific examples are valid, and we'll never get around to talking about the main point.

…But if possible, I'd like to hear from anybody who has also wondered if the whole "command radius" concept is just a wargaming Sacred Cow.

It's just another artificial restriction on the powers of the 100 foot general isn't it?

Sam: I can't add much more to your logical argument which supports the way that I've been wargaming for my entire adult life. Well said.

If a rule interferes with a playable and easy to learn set of rules, I would rather throw it out than handcuff the general

I have always believed that since we are all human beings, we are quite capable of making our own tabletop mistakes without being further handcuffed by artificial mechanisms such as command radius. I get a kick out of watching the personality of the gamer influence the way that he plays the game: with reticence or with aggressive play. Human beings impose enough restrictions on themselves without the rules having to do it as well.

[It's just another artificial restriction on the powers of the 100 foot general isn't it?]

And it basically punishes the individual units as compensation for making the army commander omniscient. That's just not making sense to me: "Your army commander shouldn't be able to see this far, or know what's going on… Therefore this brigade here can't shoot as fast, or move as fast, or react as well to be being charged suddenly."

Because we don't have noise, smoke, orders going astray or being misinterpreted, subordinates panicking, or operating under bad intel etc. we have to come up with other ways to introduce friction into our wargames so that everything isn't done by telepathic supermen.

Sam,

"I'd like to hear from anybody who has also wondered if the whole "command radius" concept is just a wargaming Sacred Cow"

Yes it is and long overdue for the abattoir!

But as both Grande Armee and Might and Reason use them, why the questioning?

[But as both Grande Armee and Might and Reason use them, why the questioning?]

I'm questioning my own thinking! I'm wondering if I could have done it better. (Or do it better, next time around…)

I have just had a look through all the rules I currently play. None of them use a "command radius" mechanic such as you describe.

Good God, Mike, is it your raison d'étre to be the one bloke who always has to contradict? Somebody could start a thread on why the Sun comes up in the East, and you'd argue that you've never seen it happen, and in fact in your world, it normally comes up in the South-West.

I think the Command and Control issues simply have to do with being able to "imply a "realistic" what if, and morale, and orders ability" on the table rather than letting the 100 ft general with unlimited Field of View order his troops to do everything and they follow all orders immediately without delay, or question, or alteration.

The willy-nilly dispersal of Federal reinforcements at Gettysburg, for instance, would be impossible – or at least fatally stupid – under most wargame rules. But obviously it worked in the real battle!

Well the be a little honest on this. It was easy to be willy nilly in the dispersal of units at Gettysburg due to the fact that the Federals for the most part were dug in/(on the defense). Their job was a lot easier.
Col Humma Humma…"Well we got here just in time."
Major Issue…"Sir, General Bogart requires you to send one of your Brigades over to help plug the weak position that is currently being held by the 128th Transylvanian Zouaves. All he needs is a Brigade to head over there, dig and and hold until 119th Corps finds it's way from Iowa to the Battlefield…"
Col. Humma Humma…"Sounds good…Send Busters Brigade…they'll do the job!"

That being said though…On the offensive it's a little less easy…
145th Gettysburg…First Days fight, our unit is moving on the enemys flank. Our battalion commander is having to move up and down the line. He gives an order for the unit to "Hold the position". Two of the companies hold, (the ones nearest him that heard), the other 3-4 continue to advance until we hit the yankees in an "L" shape….It was awkward and the Union were too busy trying to hold an oblique to realize what was going on…until too late. Thus I was lucky to have an Ohio Captain as my prisoner…but in a bigger fight, that could've been disastrous.

Command radius and other quick-fix solutions to the problem of C3 do produce unwanted and unintended effects, eg`s: we experience units in commands that run out of pips or cards that should be able to react locally… or sub-generals who cannot react to enemy commands that are a threat and who are actually engaged with them!

Have you seen this Gouvion?

link

A conclusion of which is that: "…realistic command environment rules should simulate uncertainty, chance, time, distance, chain of command, staff work and methods of communications."

The radius, or distance considered alone or without all the other factors somehow included is not enough to represent c3 in games.

Hmm…

Command radius is often used to represent a number of different things, such as the ability of a commander to coordinate his force (so if units are out of command, they are slowed down in some way), or to influence events on a personal level (so the unit loses leadership mod's if out of command), and so on. These appear to make sense on a visceral level, however they are dependent on the chronological limits placed on the game turn: Commander X (or his ADC's) can only gallop so far in so many minutes. The longer your game turns get, or the more abstract they become in measuring actual time, the less sense command radius rules will make.

Even in the standard 15-20 game turn, a horse can cover a lot of ground! When turns start to increase to 30 minutes or even one hour, it becomes harder to believe that the physical and spatial limitations represented by the command radius can be justified.

I'm not sure what the alternative would be, however "command points" and such are an attempt to quantify how much a commander could do in a certain amount of time, and most of them have LOS adjustments, penalties for moving about too much, and modifiers for distance.

Just riffing here … but, I suppose another way to go might be to simply award commanders a certain number of "command actions" depending on their quality and energy, and the type of command actions available might then be based on their training and personality. For instance (just throwing some numbers out there), an average commander might have 3 command actions, an energetic commander 4, a "staid" commander 2, etc. A commander from a flexible doctrine might have the full array of tactical actions, while a commander from a less flexible doctrine might have fewer options. Charismatic or bold leaders might have "follow me!" type options, while their duller counterpoints might not. If movement also required the use of command actions, then LOS restrictions would be important.

Well, that sounds rather like standard command points on steroids, but I suppose the point is that IF you want to quantify command ability, then providing specific choices might be more accurate and more fun, in the sense that they provide for more player choice.

"Good God, Mike, is it your raison d'étre to be the one bloke who always has to contradict? Somebody could start a thread on why the Sun comes up in the East, and you'd argue that you've never seen it happen, and in fact in your world, it normally comes up in the South-West."

I'm sorry, I can only say what is in fact the case. None of the rules I currently play use a "command radius" mechanic. Why do you take exception to such a statement of fact?

Possibly the reason for this (apparently unusual) state of affairs, is that I have been designing games for many years and I, along with several other wargamers that I know, do not write rules these days with a "command radius".

"Good God, Mike, is it your raison d'étre to be the one bloke who always has to contradict? "

I would say the answer to that is a resounding YES! 8)=

Hmm, as well.

The failure of Longstreet's attack on the second day of Gettysburg can attributed to the nwely promoted commander of what had been the Light Division refusing to take the initiative and going off in search of AP Hill, who was some distance away. By the time he got to Hill and returned, the moment had passed. Sounds like command radius to me.

Evan-Thomas at Jutland and the 2nd and 3rd Armies at Namur in 1914 are other examples of "command radius" preventing decisive action from occuring.

Independent detachments, etc, can go off and fight, but they shouldn't have the ability to zip around the field (as so often happens in games). A change in orders should take time to get there and be received and implemented.

The issue has been around a long time and ganers have struggled to come to grips with the friction and chaos of the battlefield. Command radius is an imperfect solution, but (IMHO) it makes more sense than allowing units to react instantly to any circumstance that arises on the battlefield.

I think command radius is a simple mechanic which models a complex set of factors.
Arguably over simplifying things but I don't see the problem.

A commander will usually try and keep his units roughly together and separate from other friendly commands.
In moderns, you have corridors allocated to the different companies in attack.
Units straying out of their corridors are at more risk of complications such as going the wrong way, friendly fire, taking the wrong flippin bridge.
Everything goes wrong in war.

I could list a shed load of examples where there were problems due to units being too far away from their commander.
Here's a few.

Little big horn ( How many Injuns? Bentine will be back shortly).
Armhem ( Press onto the bridge, no wait here, no…).
Light brigade ( which guns? ).

There's loads of friction in command control and the further out of sight a unit is of it's commander the more likely there will be more friction.

Peter Pig AK47 Republic has a command radius for morale. Units of different levels of proficiency can only be so far in distance from another unit in their structure, or else they are considered out of radius and it gets ugly for them…

""Good God, Mike, is it your raison d'étre to be the one bloke who always has to contradict? "

A dissenting voice is often an aide to healthy debate.

Can anyone tell me what rules you currently play DO use a "command radius"? And if they do, do you think it works in those particular rules?

"Can anyone tell me what rules you currently play DO use a "command radius"? And if they do, do you think it works in those particular rules?"

I think they work well in M&R. One of the constraints in those rules is that units must stay within the command radius of the officer. If for some reason they get out of range then the officer and all units under his command must make every attempt to get within radius their next turn. This has the potential effect of slowing down attacks as wildly charging forces have to stay within radius. It also means I can't sacrifice one unit of irregular cavalry on a wide flank move just because I don't want to deal with irregular cav. I've played one game where my opponent tried to turn my flank with a force of cavalry which was spread out but within command radius. I was able to hit the flank of this force with one of my cavalry commands. This forced the opponent to pull back on his flank move and deal with my cavalry for a while. Otherwise, without command radius he could have just kept moving the other units of the command forward.

I prefer games where this is some sort of command control, that either being a strict command radius, a variable ranged one, or even pip allocation for units in the command.
I think command control is important in the periods I play and should be reflected in the rules. It doesn't matter how, it just matters that it's addressed.

Now having said all this I do think rules can be designed to reflect dropping off a unit for a special task (defend the churchyard) but their actions should be limited to that task or getting back into command.

C3 is a process…..NOT a Radious. It consists of the following elements:

1. Commanding Element: It takes TIME to assess situational awareness, develop/alter plans, write orders.

2. Downward flow of communications. TIME and DISTANCE comes in to play.

3. The Commanded Element: Read comments from "Commanding Elelement" , above. Applies here and perhaps with increased TIME and now DISTANCE considerations.

4. The Uward Flow of Communications: This is the opposite of "Downward flow" and most games ignore the TIME and DISTANCE involved. Also, remember that the Commanding General and his staff need to analyse this communication in order to decide if any action needs to be comptenplated. TIME again comes into play.

5. Friction: At all levels of the elements described above. Lost messengers, cannot find the Command Post, Commander (or the appropriate person on his staff not available when the message comes in), etc. are some factors.

While we really do not need to know "Why" an order took so long to take effect, we DO need to model the varying effects of this on our games.

I see those designers that use the "command radius" as a "gamey" device which does not address the issues it supposes to address. (IE: I extremely dislike "Command Radius" rules. C3 issues are just as important to me as modelling realistic ranges, uniforms and terrain.)

Remember, rules for C3 do NOT have to be lengthy, complex nor "in the weeds" detailled….only "functional" in regards to the EFFECTS C3 have on gameplay. Think "cause and effects" here, only!

Best
Tom Dye
GFI

Might and Reason. And sure, they work well enough.

BTW, Mike only stated the 'rules I currently play'. That could be a very small set.

[Slowly raises Head above the parapet of this discussion]

"Is a Command Radius unnecessary in Modern Games with the communications technology available to some armies?"

[Quickly ducks back down again, assumes the foetal position and hopes the pain will be over quickly] ;)

There are reasons for objecting to command control, though it does impose a restriction on the player. Personally, I think the command radius works best as added friction rather than an absolute rule. So I'm happier with the Warmaster control modifier (-1 to the chance of success for each 20cm away from the commander) as against the rule in M&R that insists that a unit can only operate when within a certain distance of the general and, if outside it, must return at once.

In fact Warmaster does impose a maximum distance, dependent upon the abilities of the commander/army in question. In terms of the ancient battlefield especially the ability to control a wide flanking manoeuvre might well be limited, and this is what the rules do – while allowing troops in close proximity to the enemy to act with more freedom. So that, perhaps more subtle, approach does add something th=ot he game IMHO.

I hate command radius rules, however, what other mechanism is there to prevent players from using their combat units as guided torpedoes? There needs to be some restrictions.

It also depends on the scale and level of the game. If battalions are represented on the table and each player commands a brigade, that brings up different command issues than if each unit was a brigade and the player commanded a corps.

As for splitting up units, I feel this should either be built into the scenario or have very detailed command rules allowing for changes in orders based on command ability and unit training.

Anyway, command radius rules are a crutch, but we need them to keep from falling over. They also help us get a classmate to carry our books.

Seems to me that the unit(s) doing the wide flanking movement should have more freedom BECASUE they are not subject to the eyes of the overall commander, for micro-management! 8>)

Why should a unit, acting under current orders, be penalized for being outside of the magic command radius? I can see if the issue is for changing their orders, but until they receive them, why wouldn't they continue to carry out their assignement until eitther accomplished, or , some factor stops them from success?

Tom Dye
GFI

Tom

A unit being outside the 'command radius' of the c-in-c might also be considered to be outside the influence of the player. Whilst they ought to be able to carry out their orders there would need to be some mechanism
a) to ensure that they follow written orders and don't take advantage of a changing situation – at least not automatically – and
b) to give them some chance of getting their orders wrong: slowing down, turning left instead of right, or simply wheeling in to early – or too late.

I guess the short answer is yes, but you need a fairly extensive set of rules to represent the reality with a greater degree of realism.

Not only do I think that command radius is unnecessary in modern but also in Sci-Fi like 40K. Unless the race can't act without supervision.

I made a rule for my undead forces that a magic user had to be attached to a unit or they would quit fightingand just stand there.

I think the command radius in ACW is a good thing and keeps general (players) from discussing a strategy while seperated by th whole table.

I did defeat this by using the signal corp figures and made communications line of sight.

"Why should a unit, acting under current orders, be penalized for being outside of the magic command radius? I can see if the issue is for changing their orders, but until they receive them, why wouldn't they continue to carry out their assignement until eitther accomplished, or , some factor stops them from success?"

Prince Rupert.
Same mistake every battle he led the cavalry from Edgehill onwards.
His commander was wishing the blighter was still within command radius in every battle.

CATenWolde: "The longer your game turns get, or the more abstract they become in measuring actual time, the less sense command radius rules will make."

Yeah, I agree. I think perhaps a radius makes more sense for a very small tactical game, where you might be arguing that Colonel Blumpfenstein is actually *there* on the scene, personally doing such-and-such.

Although I can see the counter-argument that in a very petite-tactical game, the table-area is also pretty small, so why bother with a radius?

AERCDR: "Independent detachments, etc, can go off and fight, but they shouldn't have the ability to zip around the field (as so often happens in games)"

I hear ya… But doesn't it seem that we gamers are always trying to role-play every officer at every level of command, anyway? Apropos of this recent TMP thread:
TMP link

…in which several people said that they definitely do want to play the army commander, corps commander, division commander, and the regimental colonel, all at once, making all those different kinds of decisions… Then surely it follows logically that they should move each unit as they please, too.

After all, why allow a player to decide what formation each battalion will be in, or where he will deploy his skirmishers… But not where he will move the battalion, or how fast?

Snorbens: "Can anyone tell me what rules you currently play DO use a "command radius"?"

Mike, pretty much all the popular sets have some variation of it:

Napoleon's Battles
Fire & Fury
Grande Armee / Might & Reason
Flames of War
Warmaster
Field of Glory
Polemos
Shako
Blitzkrieg Commander
Piquet
General de Brigade
Volley & Bayonet
Le Feu Sacre
Warhammer

I know you relish your role as contrarian, and will probably claim that you've never heard of any of them, but surely even you will have to admit that you've played a few of those games.

They don't all call it "command radius," and they don't all use it exactly the same way in each case, but if you look at my initial post on this thread and note the three ways in which it's most often used, each of the games listed above uses at least one of those methods.

it all depends on what you think a tabletop battle actually is? if you see it as a problem solving exercise based upon the ability of several players to communicate and co operate then…if you see it as a simulation of a real event then….

I've written rules with fairly complicated Command Radius stuff, such as differently sized radii for various grades of commander.

In retrospect I think this was a mistake. It simply added something else to forget in the course of the battle. I think I got it from Napoleon's Battles, a game I disliked enough to want to design a better set (which I did, I think, but I shouldn't have appropriated that part of NB at all!)

That being said, some sort of distance restrictions seem useful if they have an obvious reason, either based in reality ("I can't see the general and his standard from here", or a coherent aspect of the game design applied to simply make the mechanics move according to their internal logic – "Napoleon had a great staff, even though you are obviously no Napoleon; you are an accountant from Cleethorpes."

My most recent game designs feature fairly limited use of restrictions based on distance, simply to avoid telepathic behaviour of the "I'm in the group with those three men behind the ruined factory across the field. No, I am, I swear ---" variety.

I concur that Mike Snorbens seems to feel an unnecessary need to tell us when something doesn't apply in his world. Nobody else on TMP can be relied on regularly to (taking a recent example) pitch in on a thread about painting services to say that he does not use them himself. Perhaps we should name this behaviour "snorbing" in his honour :)

"what other mechanism is there to prevent players from using their combat units as guided torpedoes"

Easy, what they did at the time. Regulating Battalions!

Gouvion St. Mango,

In response to your initial question, certainly you could dispense with a command radius mechanism in rules. I enjoy games where each player has 3 to 6 units, and there are six or more players a game. At this scale, eliminating table talk has a recognizable impact on the game. The lack of knowledge of what the fellow gamers on your side are going to do does reflect the lack of omnipotence of a commander. I find it sufficient.

However, command and control can be a core prinicple of a games design. I wrote a rule set for medieval and renaissance games that has command as a central design theme and game mechanism. (The idea was borrowed from someone else -- like all good ideas!) Each commander can only issue one order a turn, either to one unit, or the same order to all units. Then each unit issued an order has to see if they follow the new orders, or stay with the previous orders.

The intent of this mechanism is to put the player in the role of group or army commander, not every unit commander. Other game mechanisms reinforce this empahsis on player role, making a unified tapestry. The player is presented by a command figure and has a huge impact on the game, but as a commander.

So game mechanisms to deal with the limitations of commanders are not required, but can be very useful. So use command and control or not. I think it more important that the core mechanisms of a game promote a clear vision.

BO

"BTW, Mike only stated the 'rules I currently play'. That could be a very small set."

A rough count gives me 19 different sets of rules across all periods.

"Mike, pretty much all the popular sets have some variation of it:

Napoleon's Battles
Fire & Fury
Grande Armee / Might & Reason
Flames of War
Warmaster
Field of Glory
Polemos
Blitzkrieg Commander
Piquet
General de Brigade
Volley & Bayonet
Le Feu Sacre
Warhammer

I know you relish your role as contrarian, and will probably claim that you've never heard of any of them, but surely even you will have to admit that you've played a few of those games."

Of the games you list as "popular" I have, naturally, heard of them all (yes, even yours, Sam!). I have only played one and that is "Volley and Bayonet".

"Nobody else on TMP can be relied on regularly to (taking a recent example) pitch in on a thread about painting services to say that he does not use them himself." "

I think you'll find the thread in question was asking whether painting services were used by other TMPers and if so what they thought of them. I think my reply was perfectly valid in that context.

"Perhaps we should name this behaviour "snorbing" in his honour :)"

I'd be honoured!

"Easy, what they did at the time. Regulating Battalions!"

Trajanus, tell us more!

Besides, G St. M in his original post said this:

"So I'm throwing this out for discussion: could we dispense with the concept of a "command radius" altogether. Is there really a compelling reason for it?"

I was AGREEING with his suggestion (dispensing with "command radius") – so why are people jumping on me for contradicting him?

I'm not a big fan of command radii.

I agree with Tom Dye's list of C3 characteristics. And, regarding his first one, it takes some commanders (and staffs) longer than others to process information and make decisions. The really good ones are ones that can make good decisions quickly and communicate them well. (None of this "what guns, where?" stuff.)

Most of the problem is that each player is often simultaneously "role-playing" different parts of the chain of command. If he is both Napoleon AND d'Erlon at Ligny/Quatre Bras, d'Erlon is probably NOT going to spend the whole afternoon trying to decide which orders to obey. If he is both Grant AND Lew Wallace at Shiloh the latter is not going to spend all day marching on the wrong road. How do we simulate stuff like that?

Don: In essence, (when you ask how we can simulate stuff like that) we would need to simulate the non-availability of Wallace's command, in our game. Since the reason why he took the wrong road is something beyond the control of Grant, at the time, the "reason" does not matter as much as the result of that snafu.

Here is one way to recreate such on the tabletop:

Everytime the overall commander desires to send new orders, he must roll higher than the intended commander's value. (after time has been paid for a messenger to arrive at the intended command). On a 1d10, Wallace could be an 8. If you limit the number of attempts per turn (based upon the quality of the overall commander), such matter could dominate a commander's ability to get a command to act/react at the expense of other developments.

An easy "model" that could reflect the RESULTS of the difficulty of control.

Hope that helps?

Best
Tom Dye
GFI

What always annoys me about command radius is that sometimes subordinate units make good decisions. Yet most of the time they are penilized for no fault of thier own.

Sure, some screw up, but many dont. And radius rules never seem to let the good ones shine. Now of course poor or untrained units wont function well left on thier own.

And no I am not a game designer, just an old NCO that gets annoyed that nothing can happen without senior officers sticking thier noses in.

Hi all,

I am probably going to be shot for mentioning my own rules with this but here goes anyway.

I also hate the rules systems that I have seen over the years that use various command radii for different levels of command. I felt it was artificial and unrealistic. However, you do need some kind of distance because of the relationship between time and motion, time because the clock keeps ticking even if we cut battles into turns and distance motion because in a given amount of time you can move "x" amount of distance only.

As I have stated many times previously I use C.V.'s (Command Values) in my system, these are ratings for Commanders and even the command structures integral to units between 2 to 6, with 2 being very poor and 6 being excellent. These command values can be lost during action, even on commander figures and can have dire consequences when they happen, reduced CV's mean lower chances to activate orders.

Grand tactically for all chains of command for time and motion relationships I use 500yds as the radius for Order Activations. If each level of the chain of command is within this distance the chain is strong and order relay is direct and with zero delays. However, if the distance is longer at any point within that chain delays can occur. For each extra 500yds or part thereof a -10% to Order Activation occurs. The purpose for this is to simply relate the relationship between time and motion between commands and when the distance is over the time and motion relationship within the chain delays will occur if the CV roll to activate the order fails. It is as simple as that.

However, when you get down below the lowest level of Commander i.e. the Brigadier, the command radius drops to just 300yds. This is because you are not dealing with formations but instead, individual units (btlns/regiments) on the field. The 300yds at this level of the command chain represents the typical 300yds of what is known in most firearm periods as, "engagement range" or Tactical range. This is relevant just as much today as it was back in the Napoleonic period. This is the typical extreme range when dealing in minor tactical situations and deployments, simply because most firearm ranges are effective to this range. Weapons today and even back then were and are capable of firing well beyond 300yds but as a mans eyesight cannot really discern a target beyond 300yds this is why I use it. A Brigadier General on his horse with his scope can see well beyond this but the men in the ranks and their officers do not carry scopes, they have to rely on their own eyesight which is fairly poor beyond battlefield contact ranges of 300yds.

Basically, the command distance for all mounted General figures from C-in-C down to Brigadiers is 500yds, this is the distance chosen that we felt best depicts the best courier distance for order relay between the various levels of the command structure. If this distance increases inevitably delays occur via increased chances of failure for Order Activations. But once you get down to below the level of Brigadier you jump to integral command levels within individual units thus the lower radius of 300yds to depict actual battlefield combat ranges.

This level of the command structure is where individual units now come into the fore and has working relationships with and against each other. This is depicted by what we call, "Activation Ranges". There are two such activation ranges, 300yds and 500yds. The 300yds is for Activation of any and all Foot units with or against each other. The second, 500yds is when Mounted troops are concerned. For example, whenever an Infantry formation advances within 300yds of an enemy Infantry formation it automatically causes that formation to Activate i.e. the Brigade as a whole even if only one unit is actually engaged. This allows the opponent to activate (without rolling) that entire Brigade to act locally in reaction to the threat and defend itself without orders. The Brigadier is given a free hand to defend himself against the threat as long as any unit within his command does not move more than 300yds from its previous location. This time allows the higher levels of the command the time they need to change orders if needed to engage the new threat.

With respect to Cavalry formations this distance expands to 500yds (mounted) this is because Mounted troops can move much quicker than Infantry and thus react at longer distance so all the rules above apply but at 500yds. This also pertains to cross over engagements between Mounted and Foot formations. A Cavalry command moves with a 500yds radius of engagement surrounding it so it will trigger enemy Infantry formations to react and activate at 500yds not 300yds as per enemy Foot (Infantry) formations.

Basically, Activations of Formations, Army, Division, Brigade are rolled for as per the CV rules while activation of units such as Regiments and Btlns is automatic once the enemy advance within the engagement ranges above without having to roll, however, once the threat passes they will revert to their former orders or any new orders which, if was for example, "Defend" they become inactivated once more and cannot be touched until orders change.

Basically, for us, Command radii are tools that allow the players to understand the relationships between, time, motion and distance. They are set in place to hopefully realistically portray the chain of command and the friction that occurs when the relationship between all sides expands too far. As I stated earlier, I despise rules systems with complicated command radii for individual commanders which are different distances for each level of command or each individual commander ability. We opted for a much simpler but effective solution which works well and is easily understood by the players in my group.

Regards,
Shane

>>>>>Everytime the overall commander desires to send new orders, he must roll higher than the intended commander's value. (after time has been paid for a messenger to arrive at the intended command). On a 1d10, Wallace could be an 8. If you limit the number of attempts per turn (based upon the quality of the overall commander), such matter could dominate a commander's ability to get a command to act/react at the expense of other developments.

An easy "model" that could reflect the RESULTS of the difficulty of control.<<<<<

This is exactly what we do in my system with regards to our "C.V.'s" assigned to each commander from 2 to 6. @ being poor, 6 being Excellent. These factors are checked on the Order activation charts to see if the order was Activated, if not a delay sets in and the commander cannot try again until the next turn and so on until he is successful or the situation changes somehow.

Also, CV's in my system of a commander can decrease as staff etc in the command figure are lost. This lost CV points goes against the commander's ability to activate new orders and so on…or he is killed or wounded etc.

Shane

It depends on the period and the size of the battle
I thought that the old messenger or runner was a good and clear way of solving the command problem

Most officers would be briefed before the battle, any change would need to be communicated to them

The question brings to mind the differing goals of wargamers. Those wanting more of a "game" based on military history want quicker play and an emphasis on "fun." Those wanting the experience to more closely associate with "historical example" (I will avoid using the descriptive word "simulation") tend to want mechanisms for command, control, and communications.

For example, a wargamer that is trying to maneuver and deploy per historical example (and outgeneraling his opponent) will not appreciate his opponent's ability to instantly (and telepathically) communicate with a reserve (such as a brigade) some distance away from the commander and instantly move it to plug a gap in the line. If there was a delay (based on the time it would take an ADC to ride to that brigade and for that brigade to actually implement the movement) in order execution then the better maneuvering commander can rely on skill other than mere tactical dice rolling to defeat his opponent.

In a wargame without command limitations both commanders operate under the same "omniscient" conditions (and skill can obviously be a factor), but some wargamers want something more that ties to their understanding of how historical command functioned.

I agree they are really annoying rules.
However i disagree with including example 3 in the list.
""3. In some games (especially older designs) you send a little courier galloping off with new orders for the subordinates, so although there's no official "radius," effectively however far the courier can move in one turn becomes an increment of "radius.""
That just models the communications restrictions of the era.
And therefore adds to the flavour of the game.
Max

I have to agree with Tom regarding C3 effects vs distance as a blanket statement. Napoleon's Battles, for example, uses command radius to some good effects, but also some that give pretty unrealistic results. Cavalry that is out of command with be limited to half moves, while historically umrestrained cavalry tended to do quite the opposite (CHARGE!!!!).

I'm curious, though, to see some good C3 examples that don't use command radius or similar accounting for distance from higher command.

Oh, and what about C4ISR? It needs love, too. ;)

I think command control is one of those mechanisms that is essential in any game, including modern and future gaming. In all types of gaming where the player is controlling more than one warrior/unit/element there needs to be some model of command friction in the rules. Whether that is handled through a command radius, activation role, pip allocation or some combination of these or other mechanisms is up to the game designer.

Where ever more than one unit or level of command is introduced then there is naturally some friction. Granted, the LOS friction isn't as pronounced in modern gaming but there is still friction whenever two or more elements must coordinate to achieve an objective.

Personally I think M&R manages command and control well for the horse & musket period as not only is there a command radius but there is an activation roll as well. The activation rolls model the command/control capabilities of the various armies.

Of course, I also like how Fire & Fury handles C&C within those rules. I know some people hate the activation roles in F&F but I see how they serve their purpose.

Maybe it's just that I suck as a commander and want to blame activation rolls and command radiuseseses… for my inept generalship.

I have played a few of those "popular sets" listed by the instigator of this thread, and observed at some length the play of a few others. With one exception, I was not very impressed with the degree to which any of them reflected the difficulties of commanding troops.

This is not to say that they did not produce good games; some did, but wargames can be more than merely fun games with pretty figures. The ones I enjoy most are the ones that illuminate history for me in ways that narrative accounts and static illustrations cannot.

A good rule is one that reflects some aspect of military operations. A "command radius" might accurately reflect the command dynamics of a tactical situation in which the player must control all of the units under him by direct verbal orders. At all other levels, and in all periods, a commander could affect the actions of a subordinate unit at any distance – with some time delay, and some variability in the accuracy of transmission.

I agree that convincing rulesets should place restrictions on what events the player can affect, but a "command radius" is an arbitrary restriction that does not accurately reflect any of the many problems facing a historical commander.

Jeff

I concur with Gouvion St Mango & Jeff. Personally I have always found great fault with the notion of command radius, in most games it is the radio controlled unit effect – within my cmd radius units act exactly as I desire except for moral impact, yet outside of it the unit likely does nothing at all, it just stops dead in its tracks. This is both insane and silly.

1. Need an ill conceived attack to halt before it happens? Just wander off towards the back and your division will immediately halt after their telepathic link is broken.

2. Why sit in a superior vantage point when you can locate yourself amongst the men, obviously more effective since you can't see a darned thing.

3. It is good that you're such an excellent general because if you and your staff were less competent your orders would be carried out just as fast but your couriers could only travel 10" per turn and if they do not reached their given destination in a single they will turn into pumpkins.

As Jeff notes, in small unit games, tactical fights, skirmish rules, this same concepts seems like it can be very historical. But in larger scale actions where nearly all cmds are sent by some form of courier it appears broken as all get out. It is actually one of the things that makes me set a rules set aside and say, "not for me."

The rules I cling to are those that focus on cmd and control but do not put in place cmd radius like restrictions.

Cheers,

The Bandit