"The "Command Radius"" Topic

Bill,

You are refering your reply post to me once again when I did not post the information myself. This is the post of another poster (Bottom Dollar)here on TMP, sorry mate, you do need to check who you are replying too.

Shane

Hi guys.
Have I missed anything?

Of course drums, bugles, horns and whistles were also used to communicate. I came close to posting this 200 or so messages ago but thought someone might just mention them.

I guess I was wrong.

Good gaming.

Bob Coggins

"ratisbon" Bob,

you say:

"…No one is talking about applying that knowledge to design a "playable" set of rules that has something to do with what occurred on the battlefield."

Would you like to see what I have on regulating battalions?

I could mail it to you, or you could pop along and join my yahoogroup and see the rest of my rules (a "lite version" of them) at:

link

…maybe you could help on the specific point of a battalion which is disordered by artillery fire during an advance? Actually, this is something which I have raised here with Bill Haggart, but I`m now trying to work it into the "regulating" rule.

Regards,

Mike.

Scotsman Bill wrote:
"These are interesting insights into the details of maintaining alignment and intervals in the advance, but I am not sure how it applies to the question of how a DC commands, moves, and communicates with his division."

I'll refer to the first point I took from Scott's,

2237. The generals of divisions and brigades being placed further in rear of the line than the colonels, may each see at once several battalions; hence it will be easy for the perceive whence the loss of intervals, and they will give prompt notice thereof to the colonels.

The DC "will give prompt notice." What could be more clear than that ? He could ride
to the brigade commander himself or send an ADC or perhaps he might have a bugle call or some other form of communication via musical instrument. Without much further thought this might not only apply to the maintenance of specific "intervals", but might also apply to the direction of attack, or changing of direction therefore, or a revision of the original plan or informing the brigadier of new developments or new threats, etc.., etc…

Scotsman wrote:
>>>>They might be drawing upon their experience and training… naturally, or as if<<<<
"Might? What experience and training is that? What is the alternative?"

The alternative is that you would have unthinking automatons. Can we assume that we are discussing real life, rational human beings, endowed with free will or does that not conform with regulating battalion procedure?

Scotsman further wrote:
>>He might consult with his brigadiers prior to the attack/assault and explain to them the objective(s) WITHOUT designating a regulating brigade.<<<
Really? Any examples?

Yes, in fact. There's no evidence that either Barksdale or Kershaw needed a regulating brigade to advance. McLaws only says Kershaw and Semmes worked together. Barksdale seemed to be operating as something of an independent force, not to mention Wofford. That equals a division, under one commander, McLaws who attacked without specifically using a regulating brigade DRILL. Why ? Because he didn't need to.

Scotsman also wrote:
"So, what happened to a line advancing if they 'didn't worry about it?"

Did Barksdale worry about a regulating brigade drill or procedure ? I don't think so. Is there any evidence that he went out of his way to maintain an alignment with the brigades on either side of him ? Not really, but since he started out the attack with a brigade on either side, and since both of those brigades attacked also, it might have been readily--naturally-- apparent to him and his regimental commanders how to maintain a general alignment with those brigades. But from all the descriptions of his attack, it seems a reasonable assertion that the only brigade Barksdale was worried about maintaining alignment with was his own. Or is the fact that he attempted to maintain any brigade alignment--externally or internally--just more evidence of the regulating battalion drill to you ?

The Scotsman posted:
2233.  Each subordinate battalion will maintain its interval on the side of the directing battalion.

Which side was that ? The right or the left or both perhaps ?

The Scotsman further posted:
2228. The directing battalion being regarded as infallible by all the others, and having the greatest influence on them, its march will superintended with the utmost care; consequently, the general-in-chief, or the officer deputed by
him, placed in front of this battalion, will labour to maintain its centre steadily on the perpendicular; to this end, he will frequently throw himself from thirty to forty paces in front of the colour-bearer, face to the rear, and align himself correctly on the markers established behind the battalion; he will rectify, if necessary, the direction of the centre corporal, as well as that of colour-bearer.

So, where's your evidence that McLaw, Kershaw, Barksdale or Caldwell had someone "throwing themselves out 30 -40 paces in front of the colour-bearers" at "frequent intervals" in front of the directing battalion ???

The Bandit wrote:

"Weren't both of these things based on the regulations and doctrine which outlined using regulating units? Thus, following drill, experience, training would incorporate this not be an alternative to it."

Agreed. Especially, if the regulations and doctrine which outlined using regulating units was intended to teach the battalions how to regulate with each other.

BD

Bob,

>>>But in the middle of a battle, senior officers did not concern themselves with controlling battalions<<<

Excuse me but hasn't a whole chunk of this tread been dedicated to showing they didn't need too!

>>>Of course drums, bugles, horns and whistles were also used to communicate. I came close to posting this 200 or so messages ago but thought someone might just mention them<<<

Been there done that! Can't say how many hundred posts ago it was but I did point out that the Regulating Battalion was the only one allowed to have drums beating during an advance to give an sound clue to where it was.

I'd go back and find which one but given the length of this thing we would all be dead of old age by the time I found it!

Marcus,

Absloutely but how are they going to hear keeps on coming up. I know its circular but its nuts.

Same with regs. If it was decided why do so many posters continue to reiterate them?

Bob

There's just something inherently funny about saying, " I came close to posting this 200 or so messages ago…"

Ray

Because others continue to say things contrary to em …

Cheers,

The Bandit

Shane and BD:

My apologies about the mixup. I do things too quickly at times.

Scotsman,

I don't think much harm was done, the mixups are growing.

You asked BD what alternatives there were to controlling by regulating units and he replied: following training and regulations.

I asked BD: since training and regulations were based on regulating units, then that does not seem like an alternative.

BD replied: correct.

… and then went on in a new post talking about regulating battalions are still not the way to go.

Me: completely confused then how you and he are not in agreement.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Question 1. How would the use of a "regulating battalion" make any difference in any of the commercially produced rules available today? You must be specific, citing examples.

Question 2. How does the use of a "command radius" negatively affect the specific rules that currently use them. Again, be specific and cite examples.

Silly Rabbit

"Command radius": How far I can reach with my arm or throw an object to get the attention of a child….

Rabbit,

>>>Question 1. How would the use of a "regulating battalion" make any difference in any of the commercially produced rules available today? You must be specific, citing examples.<<<

>>>Question 2. How does the use of a "command radius" negatively affect the specific rules that currently use them. Again, be specific and cite examples.<<<

Firstly, that's not how it works!

This is not an exam paper, it's a public forum.

To reply to Item 1:

The use of the Regulating Battalion would make a difference as it would employ a known period solution to the practice of keeping units in alignment and within communication distance of each other.

Thereby obviating the need to create other ‘in game' devices to prevent players from splitting off individual battalions in an unhistorical manner, outside of the parent units mission.

If you want an example, look at Shako 2 which combines combat modifiers with a form of national doctrine, to get players to move in tight formation.

To reply to Item 2:

Negative effect as such is hard to quantify, as the "command radius" is used in different ways in different rule sets. The only commonality being a measured distance from a command point on the tabletop, usually represented by a "command figure" or General.

The aspects of generalizing a number of historical C2 factors into a single function and the fact that, in historical terms, there was no such principal given this actual title, is a matter of this long debate.

The other point of discussion is that in the majority of commercially produced rules, a clear intent as to the employment of this device, is generally not provided.

Thereby missing the opportunity to impart knowledge which may or may not be held by the author and providing a degree of cover, if they are in fact not aware of period detail, rather than just choosing not to use it.

Not of itself a negative, in rules terms, but a possibility to enrich the experience that's not used.

So, …all this is really about semantics.

You say "hey, all you rules writers, …you must have detailed and historically justified rules to 'convince' me, as the player, to keep my units in some sort of historical order."

And the rules writers say in return: "We have provided a very simple mechanism that duplicates as close as we feel necessary the difficulties of battlefield command and formation plus saves all the unnecessary verbiage (in our opinion) needed to describe the reasons and mechanisms with which units stay together, saving us page costs," …and saving trees, for the tree lovers out there in TMP land.

Semantics. For what purpose?

In my very limited experience rules that go into too much detail aren't as playable or as enjoyable as those that don't, …I realize that is personal preference, but I wonder which are better sellers. My experience with Chef de Battalion, later Empire versions, and some of the cherished English sets, with all their detail and overwrought justifications made me happy I did not spend my hard earned money for them. My experience with Volley & Bayonet, on the other hand, made me happy I did, and there is no reference to regulating battalions or a lack of command radius there.

To me this whole discussion has been about two or three individuals' attempt to introduce their pet theory into the lexicon of rules for the period. My view is supported by my review of posts on other forums on the same or similar subjects. And no, I am not going to quote those posts.

I will restate again, …those that feel the historical justifications aren't there for command radius substituting historical structure and regulations instead should publish their own rules and let the court of public opinion (by that I mean sales) pass judgement on their theories.

Frankly I would probably purchase them, for no other reason than to see how many pages and rules are necessary to replace the simple mechanism of command radius in so many other commercially successful sets.

But this is only my opinion… Silly Rabbit

Silly Rabbit asked:

"Question 1. How would the use of a "regulating battalion" make any difference in any of the commercially produced rules available today? You must be specific, citing examples.

Question 2. How does the use of a "command radius" negatively affect the specific rules that currently use them. Again, be specific and cite examples. "

The answer is dependent upon the target audience for the product, the designer's purpose in writing the game, the designer's purpose for publishing the game, and the consumer's purpose in choosing that game over a different one. Please be more specific; we need to know your frame of reference so an answer will make sense to you.

Apparently the latest postings by Silly Rabbit and me came onto the board simultaneously. I will clarify my last post's question in my next post.

The Bandit wrote:
"Me: completely confused then how you and he are not in agreement."

Not me, but I enjoyed the exercise and learned quite a bit from it.

Anyone have a free link to the 1791 regulations ? Or maybe that's one you gotta buy ?

Silly Rabbit,
When I said we needed to know your frame of reference it is because I am not sure if you are posting here personally or professionally, and when I look back at prior posts I am not sure if they came from you or another person in your organization. Your latest posting includes:
"So, …all this is really about semantics…You say "hey, all you rules writers, …you must have detailed and historically justified rules to 'convince' me, as the player..And the rules writers say in return… "We have provided a very simple mechanism that duplicates as close as we feel necessary… Semantics. For what purpose? In my very limited experience rules that go into too much detail aren't as playable or as enjoyable as those that don't, …I realize that is personal preference, but I wonder which are better sellers. My experience… made me happy I did not spend my hard earned money for them. My experience with Volley & Bayonet, on the other hand, made me happy I did, and there is no reference to regulating battalions or a lack of command radius there. To me this whole discussion has been about two or three individuals' attempt to introduce their pet theory into the lexicon of rules for the period. My view is supported by my review of posts… I will restate again, …those that feel the historical justifications aren't there for command radius substituting historical structure and regulations instead should publish their own rules and let the court of public opinion (by that I mean sales) pass judgement on their theories…"
Therefore, I am assuming your frame of reference (based upon this and past postings) is:
a) Professionally speaking, there are only two categories – Serious Simulations (involving real life stress and danger) and "all other games" (which you have called Simple Tabletop Games).
b) There is no other definition for simulation.
c) Since these other games cannot teach anything about real War, they can at best offer only some nebulous "historical flavor" (to be defined by each consumer) so any rules or any historical justification can be used or can replace each another because in the final analysis none of them make the "game" anything but a "game." They are therefore by definition unable to capture real-life military history.
d) Therefore, the real test as to the value of rules is to be playable, and to have what to you is an "acceptable" historical justification.
e) Since the game cannot reflect "real" war, the proof of a good design is commercial success
f) Commercial success is more likely for any rules that can find a faster, easier game mechanic that still gives the "flavor" or what are in someone's subjective opinion are "historically acceptable" results
g) That the "regulating battalion" discussion offers nothing more than pet theories in an attempt to discredit commercially successful or available rules
h) the discussion is only about semantics – since these are just "game" design arguments, all are equally valid and invalid, so just use the one that is the most playable and acceptable to the broadest segment of the market.

If I have this right, I can then move on to answer your questions, but only if you are still interested. If I have mischaracterized your frame of reference, please feel free to correct me.

SR,

"Question 1. How would the use of a "regulating battalion" make any difference in any of the commercially produced rules available today? You must be specific, citing examples."

Command Radius rules would not exist. For information on their impact, see answer to Question #2.

"Question 2. How does the use of a "command radius" negatively affect the specific rules that currently use them. Again, be specific and cite examples."

Sure, I'll bite. Napy's Battles: A player intends to order a division to advance and take a given position. This advance / movement will require several turns to conclude. The Division Commander's figure does not move to stay within CR of all of his brigades. The result is some of his brigades stop following the order and halt or perhaps move at 1/2 speed. Yet the only cause is because they are farther away from the Division Commander than the others. They already received their order: move to X position. That order does not randomly expire if they do not reach it in one turn's time.

Another example (also Napy's Battles): The C-in-C figure is located in a superior vantage point giving him an excellent view of the field of battle in all directions. My Corps Commander figure is within CR of the C-in-C but on the edge of it. The order sent to the Corps Cmdr. is to advance his corps and attack. If the Corps Cmdr. moves he will be moving out of the C-in-C's CR, thus the C-in-C must also advance, abandoning the superior vantage point and instead standing in a gully where he can't see a darn thing. This makes no sense. Until the Corps requires new orders the distance from the C-in-C should have no performance impact, but since it does, the C-in-C has to move to stay within CR with the Corps Cmdr.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I will say something interesting in my next post.

Or not.

I guess it depends on your definition of "interesting."

And your definition of "something."

Don't hold your breath, though.

:)

>>>So, …all this is really about semantics<<<

Well actually, it all started out being about Sam antics and just carried on from there!

I just had to put my 2 cents in.

STT

Dear God people, why don't you discuss something less controversial . . . like whether or not to move Historicon to Baltimore :).

Regards, Bill Gray
ageofeagles.com

Bill the Scotsman wrote:

"Shane and BD:
My apologies about the mixup. I do things too quickly at times."

No sweat. Was kind of hoping you would continue to make a case, as I was learning in the refutations--whether successful or not. Was also hoping we would enter the 700 Club. Maybe on the next thread…

Bottom Dollar Jim

PS You're pretty darn tenacious.

silly rabbit wrote:

"In my very limited experience rules that go into too much detail aren't as playable or as enjoyable as those that don't, …I realize that is personal preference, but I wonder which are better sellers. My experience with Chef de Battalion, later Empire versions, and some of the cherished English sets, with all their detail and overwrought justifications made me happy I did not spend my hard earned money for them. My experience with Volley & Bayonet, on the other hand, made me happy I did, and there is no reference to regulating battalions or a lack of command radius there."

More experience than me. Lucky dog. A few combat tours under CENTCOM and then you get handed boxes of miniatures and rule sets. Remember that line from that grunt in "Platoon" ? Gravy.

You want a solid strategic system minus the command radius and the regulating battalion, try Advanced Squad Leader… and then remember to thank John Hill and a few others.

Jim

Did it ever happen that the regulating battalion got smashed to pieces / bogged down / chased away, and what provisions were there for coping with this?

Jim, we play ASL quite a bit, …but honestly the set of rules developed by ComOpsCtr for JRTC, which uses the individual capabilities of the participants (PFT score, Range scores, scenario testing score) turned into a dice value is fantastic. It's the most useful tool in our tool box when combined with the super detailed terrain they build in 1/300 scale.

Ned, Since I started writing under my call sign everything written has been my work. I can't comment prior to that because I don't know. There are only two others in the group interested in Napoleonics so I would imagine they would have been the only one's participating plus the other three monitor other threads and other sites.

I think commercial success is a good judge of how accepted by the gaming community a set of rules becomes. If a set is very playable and gives the feel of the period it will be picked up by others after the initial introduction at conventions, local shops, or evening beer and pretzel games. That means the set must be able to produce a winner in three or four hours game time, …not take all weekend to adjudicate two or three turns like some of the Empire games I've heard discussed among my mates. To clarify, I've played one Empire game in my life and hated it, …never going to do that again. Our boss has played every version of Empire and still plays Empire II with some of his "old" gamer buddies in the Midwest. They play Napoleon's Battles and Volley & Bayonet for large strategic scenarios, and leave the tactical arena to CLS with all its quirks.

I really do enjoy wargaming. I'm learning to paint figures and organizing my first game for one of the professional development groups. I've chosen the 1809 campaign with Austrians against Bavarians and French. The Bavarians are my favorite army since my favorite color is cornflower blue, …kinda figures doesn't it.

Perhaps I will post my ideas for the game later…

Silly Rabbit.

Bandit,

You are right about me not reading all the posts of this Monster. There were 644 before my last post and this one will put it at 679.

Somewhere many pages ago this Topic did what alot of Topics do and that is get side tracked onto other Topics. I do not know how many but there is more going on here than Command Radius.

What I do know that Command Radius is wargaming term to define the limit that a Division or Bde commander can control their units.

If an unit gets outside of this range the commander will have a far harder time controlling it.

Now we have had individuals post old Regs that went on about the proper spacing and movement of units. That is all well and good but really has nothing to do with Command Radius.

Plus I would put forth that while most units knew about the Regs when it came time to actually do it a combat situation things probably did not go as plan. Commanders still act upon and carried out their orders but whatever they did was probably not in the Reg's.

This kind of reminds me of a Cav Cpt who stated that he did everything by the book. He was referring to the Army Manual on Cav Sqdn's Operations (yes he was a West Point grad). Well me and another NCO just look at him and both stated "that there are situations that are just not in the book". Oh he went on to teach at West Point a few year later.

This has always been the case.

So some quotes:

"In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it."
- Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
– General George Patton Jr

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
- Napoleon Bonaparte

BD:
Howdy, I haven't been able to get to my computer until now.

BD wrote:
>>>2237. The generals of divisions and brigades being placed further in rear of the line than the colonels, may each see at once several battalions; hence it will be easy for the perceive whence the loss of intervals, and they will give prompt notice thereof to the colonels.>>>

>>>>The DC "will give prompt notice." What could be more clear than that ? He could ride to the brigade commander himself or send an ADC or perhaps he might have a bugle call or some other form of communication via musical instrument. Without much further thought this might not only apply to the maintenance of specific "intervals", but might also apply to the direction of attack, or changing of direction therefore, or a revision of the original plan or informing the brigadier of new developments or new threats, etc.., etc…<<<<

It's very clear and the DC or brigadiers could use any means at their disposal to give prompt notice, even personal intervention. Very true. That particular action is an exception, rather than the rule.

My point was that the general view, given earlier in the manual says of a DC's responsibilities:
2224: The general need not occupy himself with the general alignment of the colour-ranks and general guides of the different battalions; it will suffice if those of each battalion conform themselves to what has just been prescribed.

So USUALLY, the DC didn't bother correcting an individual battalion's progress. It was the responsibility of the Brigadiers. The 2237 instruction is very specific: because of the Brigadiers' AND DCs' position behind the line, they might see specific problems, i.e. interval gaps, that the colonel of the battalion wouldn't. THEN he was directed to get involved at that point if he saw such a situation. I am sure from the regulations, that it wasn't a common an occurrence.

"Might? What experience and training is that? What is the alternative?"

>>>>The alternative is that you would have unthinking automatons. Can we assume that we are discussing real life, rational human beings, endowed with free will or does that not conform with regulating battalion procedure?<<<<

Well, yes. I think we can assume that Scott and other writers assumed the same thing. The regulating battalion was a primary tool for moving large numbers of men, not the holy grail. Yet it was necessary to follow procedures when thousands were doing the same. Deviations, if not intelligently and sparingly done, could and did screw up the whole process. The Confederate and Union operations on the Second at Gettysburg provides some good examples.
Scotsman further wrote:

>>He might consult with his brigadiers prior to the attack/assault and explain to them the objective(s) WITHOUT designating a regulating brigade.<<<

Really? Any examples?

>>>Yes, in fact. There's no evidence that either Barksdale or Kershaw needed a regulating brigade to advance. McLaws only says Kershaw and Semmes worked together. Barksdale seemed to be operating as something of an independent force, not to mention Wofford. That equals a division, under one commander, McLaws who attacked without specifically using a regulating brigade DRILL. Why ? Because he didn't need to.<<<<

Scotsman also wrote:
"So, what happened to a line advancing if they 'didn't worry about it?"

>>>>Did Barksdale worry about a regulating brigade drill or procedure ? I don't think so. Is there any evidence that he went out of his way to maintain an alignment with the brigades on either side of him?>>>>

I will have to address this separately. That is the question.

The Scotsman posted:
2233. Each subordinate battalion will maintain its interval on the side of the directing battalion.

>>>>Which side was that ? The right or the left or both perhaps?<<<<

No, the regulations are very clear. One regulating or directing battalion, so it would have to be on one side or the other. That's why there can be a "The flank opposite to the direction" for each battalion.

The Scotsman further posted:
2228. The directing battalion being regarded as infallible by all the others, and having the greatest influence on them, its march will superintended with the utmost care; consequently, the general-in-chief, or the officer deputed by him, placed in front of this battalion, will labour to maintain its centre steadily on the perpendicular; to this end, he will frequently throw himself from thirty to forty paces in front of the colour-bearer, face to the rear, and align himself correctly on the markers established behind the battalion; he will rectify, if necessary, the direction of the centre corporal, as well as that of colour-bearer.

>>>>So, where's your evidence that McLaw, Kershaw, Barksdale or Caldwell had someone "throwing themselves out 30 -40 paces in front of the colour-bearers" at "frequent intervals" in front of the directing battalion ???<<<<<

Well, if there was a directing battalion or regiment for those divisions and brigades, then there probably would be someone carrying out those directions.

>>>>Yes, in fact. There's no evidence that either Barksdale or Kershaw needed a regulating brigade to advance. McLaws only says Kershaw and Semmes worked together. Barksdale seemed to be operating as something of an independent force, not to mention Wofford. That equals a division, under one commander, McLaws who attacked without specifically using a regulating brigade DRILL. Why ? Because he didn't need to.<<<

Okay, you want evidence. Will those generals' reports do?

Scotsman also wrote:

"So, what happened to a line advancing if they 'didn't worry about it?"

>>>Did Barksdale worry about a regulating brigade drill or procedure ? I don't think so. Is there any evidence that he went out of his way to maintain an alignment with the brigades on either side of him?<<<<<

That's the question, isn't it? And we have to see them worrying about it.

I'll post the evidence.

((((((((Shane:
Howdy, I haven't been able to get to my computer until now.

Shane wrote:
>>>2237. The generals of divisions and brigades being placed further in rear of the line than the colonels, may each see at once several battalions; hence it will be easy for the perceive whence the loss of intervals, and they will give prompt notice thereof to the colonels.>>>))))))))

Bill (TheScotsman),

There ya go doing it again, Bill, I really have to ask you to really concentrate on referencing prior posts as to who you are quoting them from. For some reason you have some kind of infatuation with me that you refer to me as the person you are replying to when in actual fact I have nothing to do with these posts.

Please man, for the love of god, refer the quotes carefully and direct them to the actual person you are replying to and leave me out of it if I was not the original writer of the post you are replying to, please?

Shane

I found this on the net, thought it might be interesting to read :

David Fox – 11:55am Oct 22, 1998 PST (#3477 of 3529)

This is the game description that appeared in the past issue of
PERFIDIOUS ALBION:

La Grande Armee: Austerlitz 1805 is a tactical game, infantry
battalion/cavalry regiment/artillery battery level, 150 yards/hex,
with 20-minute turns. Squarely in La Bataille's backyard, you might say.

I'm basing the command mechanics on the LIM system found in Richard
Berg's A FAMOUS VICTORY, although with
certain crucial differences (which I will explore in a minute). I think
LIM's are the best method of handling battlefield command
chaos, although the AFV system has two flaws-- first, even though you
don't know when a command will get to move, you can
be sure they will activate sometime during the turn, no matter how dense
the commander; secondly, you can completely recycle
the LIM's from one turn to the next, allowing you to turn on a dime the
axis of your army's advance from one flank to another.
Napoleonic armies as Barry Sanders, as it where.

But I have fixed both problems, thus: 1. When a leader's LIM is drawn
from the Command Pool, you still must roll to activate
him. All division commanders have activation ratings, ranging from the
7's (on a d10) of Vandamme and Kellerman to the 4's of
Carneville and Monakhtin (and with these guys a 4 is being kind). The
French division commanders are generally 2 points
higher than their more sluggish Allied enemies.

Successfully activating allows a division to move and fight at full
capacity; failure can result in all sorts of things, determined by a
roll against the commander's personality rating (Aggressive, Normal, or
Cautious) on the Command Breakdown Chart. The
most common result of failure is a limited activation (half move but no
attacking), but you can be frozen, or forced to retreat,
deliver a headlong charge, or even give your opponent a chance to
activate one of his divisions.

2. To prevent LIM recycling, I only allow players to add a limited
number of LIM's to the Command Pool at the start of a turn.
When its LIM is drawn, a division gains fatigue; after six turns of
fatigue (about 1 « hours of game time) the nasty effects start to
kick in. To "rest" a division, its LIM can be withdrawn from the Pool
voluntarily. However, putting it back in ain't so easy.

To add LIM's to the Pool, players must roll on the Command Change Table,
which may only allow them to drop one or two
LIM's (or maybe none) back into the cup. Again, the French do better
here than the Allies. What I'm trying to do with this is
create the atmosphere of an orders system without the record-keeping
burdens of tracking orders-- adding a LIM is an order
given to a division commander, removing it means that the order has been
completed or the division has been broken down by
combat, and the difficulty of putting the LIM back in again represents a
division waiting for new orders to be delivered.

From SIMTAC I've borrowed their excellent paradigm of Napoleonic
infantry melee; i.e. it almost never happened. Infantry
vs. infantry in the open was inevitably a case of the attacker stumping
forward until about 50 yards away from the defender,
when the defender either cut and ran or the attackers lost their nerve,
halted, and exchanged close-range volleys until one or the
other melted away. So in my game the attacker and defender compare
morale checks, and if nobody breaks, nothing happens.
However, if defending infantry is in Defensive Terrain (buildings or
behind a wall), then we use the Assault procedure, with the
familiar morale check/defensive fire/melee table process. In BATTLE
TACTICS OF NAPOLEON AND HIS ENEMIES,
Nosworthy confirms that while melee in open ground was unknown, the
psychological effect of defending behind a wall or
inside a building gave the defender an incentive to stand his ground and
the attackers a definite objective to overthrow.

Not to worry, though, cavalry charges are still full-tilt, hell bent for
leather, do or die-type adventures.

I've also added piles of chrome. The Russian Cossacks appear, in an
almost useless battlefield role (stealing horses and burning
farms was their preferred line of work, not charging a wall of bayonets,
sensible fellows). The two French elite Tirailleur
regiments- the Tirailleurs Corse and Tirailleurs du Po- can break down
into independent skirmish companies. The French
player can use Napoleon or Songis to create a Grand Battery, or detach
Rapp with a task force of independent units. And of
course there's the Fog, covering the Allied flanking move but burning
off just in time to reveal St. Hilaire and Vandamme
climbing the Pratzen.

David

also, check these rules out and the ideas he has for Command Control – they are very interesting indeed.

link

Silly Rabbit wrote:
>>>>Question 1. How would the use of a "regulating battalion" make any difference in any of the commercially produced rules available today? You must be specific, citing examples.<<<<

SR:
It depends on what 'difference' you are talking about. If the designer states that his commercially produced rules simulates, captures, recreates, models, mimicks the command and control of the Napoleonic wars, DCs for a specific, then it would make a difference--using would be a step closer to accomplishing the goals that the designer set out for it, and providing substance to any promotion of the same. If the game isn't supposed to replicate Napoleonic command and control, then it would make absolutely no difference.

What do you think?

If a game claimed to simulate modern warfare command and control, but had provided no game mechanics for radios and satellite communication, what effect would that have on a commercial set of rules? I know what effect it would have on a commercial wargame like "Call of Duty 4".

>>>Question 2. How does the use of a "command radius" negatively affect the specific rules that currently use them. Again, be specific and cite examples.<<<<

Again, if the purpose of the rules is to simulate, mimic, capture or model Napoleonic warfare, specifically at the level of the Division Commander and below, then the designer would have to:

1. Know the how, when, where, and why of the basic command system to actually model it, right?

2. Produce game mechanics that provide the same kind of How, When, Where and Why for the players in the artificial environment of the game.

If the designer claims that his game is supposed to capture some of the command and control methods used by a DC and it actually doesn't, then I would imagine that the game design had failed to achieve the goals the designer set for his rules set.

Is that a negative?

If the command radius rules of a game present the player with DCs that can:
Apply their Command control evenly to all brigades regardless of formation, within a circle established by how far a horse could travel in 30 minutes--Then you have to ask if those mechanics are presenting the players with the salient traits of a DC's command abilities on the battlefield?

*If the DC's primary method of control did not rely on the speed of a horse, and could be delivered faster than that; *If commanders didn't control or even influence any and all brigades individually, but through specific Divisional formations;
*If Division commanders in fact would generally avoid becoming involved with individual brigades except in critical points,

Then if true, I think it is safe to say that the CR rules for F&F, V&B, and a number of other rules can't be said to capture the basic dynamics of DC command at all.

In the end, for a historical simulation/game to work, it has to present the players with the same tools to work with in the game as their historical counterparts--but only those that the designer claims to have targeted, no more no less.

What effect this would have or does have on commercial game rules presently is difficult to answer because:

1. We don't know how important that is to what number of players,

2. We don't know how many would buy if the game indeed did meet such designer goals for DC command and control.

3. We don't know how popular rules that DID provide that would do in the marketplace in comparison

4. We don't know if gamers would know enough to recognize the difference,

5. We don't know how many gamers buy the current rules even though they know they fail to meet the designer's proported goals, and

6. Gamers really might not care, though if that were true it doesn't explain why EVERY designer does care enough to claim such things when promoting their games.

Shane wrote
Please man, for the love of god, refer the quotes carefully and direct them to the actual person you are replying to and leave me out of it if I was not the original writer of the post you are replying to, please?

Shane:
Dang. I figured out why this kept happening. I am writing on MSWord and then copying it here. Unfortunately, I am using the same pages over and over again, erasing and rewriting so as not to save thousands of posts, and guess who's name at the top of the page never got erased?

I've got it fixed now. Mea Culpa. I am now preparing to fall on my claymore.

Bill the Scotsman

lol, no worries Bill.

Mithmee,

"If an unit gets outside of this range the commander will have a far harder time controlling it."

The reason I responded as I did was that this is not entirely true and the answer to why is bore out in excessive detail in all those posts.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Mithmee,
IMO, the points you bring up were already covered in this thread, and you might find it useful to go back and read those sections. Command radius was attacked, and defended, and discussed at length.

At that point the question was posed as to whether or not there could be another way to portray period command and control. That is where Regulating Battalions were mentioned as an example of an alternative and put forth as an example of standard operating procedures. In other words, as the norm rather than the exception.

Since most people were not aware of such a thing, descriptions of its historical usage were given, as well as some of it implications for reevaluating one's historical interpretation of "how things worked".

Such claims bring demands for evidence – that necessarily means bringing in quotations from memoirs and regulations.

Those who assume that they already know how Napoleonic command and control worked, or that such details are unnecessary (or even counterproductive) for playable games, or that no true knowledge of the period is possible, or that these new "revelations" are wrong, probably gave up on this thread long ago.

Those few who remain here probably persist because these details are intriguing enough to consider rethinking one's ideas about how Napoleonic command and control worked or perhaps how to represent that in a game design. Those folks are willing to hear new evidence and debate before deciding if they should accept, modify, or reject the new ideas; but there is no misunderstanding about the Command Radius mechanics and what they represent. It is just that an alternative was suggested and the discussion is now mostly about the feasibility and justifications for it.

Again, just my opinion.

With regards to "Regulating Battalions" as I already discussed much earlier, I feel that this belongs to the act of the very moving of the figures by the players. When you are at the stage in a turn sequence where you are physically touching the units and moving them is simply the game mechanic of regulating the btlns. Yes it is part of command control because the actual player is having to control the progressive movement of the units in the command by touching them, directing them and physically moving them from one location to another.

When he does this he is using a game mechanic which is the duel task of movement and control, it is up to that player to direct his units via set boundaries within the system for movement allowances, formation changes, direction changes and reaction. He also has to enforce to himself the act of directing these units to coordinate their movement with each other, usually by moving one units and the rest conform to that movement and so on. This is all part of Regulating battalions in a command control environment subject to the limitations I have discussed. When the player does this he conforms to the idea of the, "Regulations" of the drill manuals if he does this correctly and by the book, if not then problems arise such as from movement restrictions due to terrain, junior commander stuff ups in coordination and confusion or from problems arising from enemy actions etc.

So for my mind Regulating Battalions has always been in game systems even if not shown as a official game mechanic, players will still direct their formations as a matter of course directing them via movement coordination and so on. So what I am saying is that all players use regulating battalions in every game they play without knowing what it is they have been doing is an official and recognised concept. They might not know the name but we all coordinate our btlns as a matter of course.

What needs to be done now is to recognise the concept of Regulating Battalions as an official mechanic in game systems and set out parameters for its use which are recognized in the various drill manuals of the time. This has been lacking in many rules systems and players of those systems do not understand them. The concept of the Command Radius as a controlling function of a commander to his units inside and outside the CR is one way to do it but not if used to slow down or stop units that are caught outside the CR. If however, the CR is used to signify a time delay for orders then I am all for it, this is what I do with CR's but that is another story…

So, I feel that the mere pushing of troops around the table (a function we all do without relating it to RB's) is valid and part of any rule system to progress troops in compliance with their movement orders. What we have to do now it recognise the concept (mechanic) officially and begin to understand the drill manuals which they are held in so that players do not go off racing around with btlns like sports cars as some players do. But to direct the formations as per the manuals which will give rise to the natural boundaries and limitations that they were written to instill in the generals they were written for with regards to command control of larger formations.

i.e. put rules in place to teach players how it was done via the actual drill manuals.

does this make sense ?

Shane

silly rabbit wrote:
"Jim, we play ASL quite a bit, …but honestly the set of rules developed by ComOpsCtr for JRTC, which uses the individual capabilities of the participants (PFT score, Range scores, scenario testing score) turned into a dice value is fantastic. It's the most useful tool in our tool box when combined with the super detailed terrain they build in 1/300 scale."

Wonderful. ASL x individual capabilities x super detailed terrain. Wouldn't be surprised if John Hill had a hand in that one also. Yeah right, you're a newbie.

BD, the proprietory JRTC rules mentioned had their beginnings in Mike Korn's WWII rules from the 60's. ASL has the same genesis but the game similarity stops there other than some of the mechanics which have to be similar.

JRTC's rules are based on the usage of time over an unfixed period. Each "turn" consists of 6 unfixed time segments of whose usage by the players is based on their capabilities and chance (it usually works out to be real time since real battle normally has intense periods followed by lots of recovery time).

At the beginning of each "turn" commanders use two of their capability dice (d4 thru d12) to determine how many actions and decision points they have during the turn, which vary greatly from a minimum of three actions and two decisions to six of each during the entire turn.

Their rolls are referenced to an "interaction map" which clearly plots any time players on all parts of the table top may interact. Players roll specific capabilities to see if they recognize the interaction when it happens, if it happens, which is determined by the moderator.

Sounds complicated but it really isn't for the players at all. They only have to roll dice, make decisions, and move their forces. The team of moderators (judges) operate very similar to a dungeon master in the old D&D games but it is really much more complicated than that as I am sure you would understand based on the modern battlefield.

Scotsman: YOU keep talking about "YOUR" definition of a game/simulation. "YOUR" reality has nothing to do with mine, or most of the Napoleonic gamers I associate with. WE are satisfied with the "tool" many rules writers use in what they call "command radius". Quite frankly I don't care if YOU don't like it, or think it doesn't reflect "YOUR" ideals of the way Napoleonic games/simulation should be played. To me YOU are not an expert in anything, let along the Napoleonic period. YOU can keep on keep'n on all YOU want, but fewer and fewer people are listening.

I will say this for the last time because this is the last time I will reply to one of your posts, or read one for that matter.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY CURRENT RULES ARE WRITTEN WRITE YOU OWN. I can't say it any clearer than that. Perhaps they will sell? PERHAPS NOT?

Silly Rabbit

Silly Rabbit wrote:

"BD, the proprietory JRTC rules mentioned had their beginnings in Mike Korn's WWII rules from the 60's. ASL has the same genesis but the game similarity stops there other than some of the mechanics which have to be similar."

Mike Korns wrote "Modern War in Miniature" based on data he had from military work in the midwest. He was no longer working with the military but was with, I think, the phone company, when I gamed with him on his sand table in Mountain View, California.

He had taken the different formulas from Modern War in Miniature and adapted them into tables and charts and self-published them as Small Unit Tactical Combat ("SUTC") which was basically an umpired WWII skirmish game. Players were in separate rooms with maps showing the location of their own squad members, while Mike had all figures on his sandtable and umpired the game from there.

(Later when I introduced the game to friends, I had players come to the table so they could see the terrain themselves, and put figures on or off the table based upon what they could have "seen".

We also used icosohedron dice, rather then the random number tables Korns had in the back of his booklet. At his apartment we actually used a random number generator he had built. One guy in my group named Richard Burnett really took to the game and he has put on games at different California conventions over the years so some of you may have seen them.)

Mike bought himself a printing press for something like $1,000 USD (big money for the late '60s) and printed SUTC. (If anyone would like to see a copy of the SUTC rules email me at nedz@mindspring.com). These rules were very influential for me because of the hidden movement effect.

I remember one time (I was a high school student at the time I think) Mike was describing how if each guy in the group could kick in $100 USD we could get enough to buy a computer and he described a WWI fighter game that could be played with that from a cockpit point of view. (Later when I saw the booklet game Ace of Aces it reminded me a lot of what Mike was talking about).

Well, we didn't have the money, but he certainly had a lot of ideas that were ahead of the curve. Something happened and he left Mountain View suddenly one day and totally dropped out of sight and I never heard of him again.

-Ned

PS I should add that a couple of years ago, I think in the MWAN magazine, I saw an article about game rules called Small Unit Tactical Combat or something similar. The rules in the magazine seemed very, very similar to Mike's SUTC rules. I wrote a letter to the editor pointing this out but do not know if anything came of it or if there was some explanation, or if I had misread them.

Wow, this is crazy!

Just play the game, darnit.

If you don't like the rules, then write your own. [EDIT: I just noticed that Silly Rabbit wrote the same darn thing just a few posts ahead of me. We must be having a Vulcan mind-meld or some such.]

And write them for a specific period – don't try to use the same rules for Ancients and WWII.

Shane,

>>>What we have to do now it recognise the concept (mechanic) officially and begin to understand the drill manuals which they are held in so that players do not go off racing around with btlns like sports cars as some players do. But to direct the formations as per the manuals which will give rise to the natural boundaries and limitations that they were written to instill in the generals they were written for with regards to command control of larger formations.

i.e. put rules in place to teach players how it was done via the actual drill manuals.

does this make sense ? <<<

You bet your rear it makes sense!

That's what myself, Scotsman and other ‘Regulators' have been banging on about!

Only thing I would add is to say ‘that's why its in the rules.'when you have written them.

Shane,

>>>check these rules out and the ideas he has for Command Control – they are very interesting indeed<<<

Scott has been in and around the VLB Yahoo Group over the years. The rules are his take on how VLB can work in Napoleonics.

>"That's what myself, Scotsman and other ‘Regulators' have been banging on about!"<

If the three of you have come to a consensus, perhaps it it time to put this thread to rest.

RIP

But how can it die when it's so close to 700 posts….

I can see it hitting 1000…

So true no matter we do it should get to that point and then we should consider if we want it to go to 800.

Which I feel is not everyone cup of tea.

It just needs one more post to hit the 700 mark.

Oops this is the 700 post.