"The "Command Radius"" Topic

MichaelC wrote:

>>an artifice = something that someone "makes up".<<<

Michael:

Yeah, I got that, but as EVERYTHING in a Simulation or game is 'made up', I didn't understand it from that point,and the 'regulating battalion' isn't something 'I' made up, so that doesn't fit.

And unlike the regulating mechanism, a 'Command Radius" as a concept doesn't seem to have been mentioned by Napoleonic military men on the battlefield, let alone established in regulations and battlefield practices, I am at a loss to know exactly what was meant.

That's all.

The Scotsman,

I am not even going to argue that your argument is not valid, which it is not. There are plenty of things that occurred in war that were not covered by "regulations," and what senior officers and their aides did during battles was one of them.

If as you claim everything in a game is made up, what difference is it to you whether some rules us CR?

I did not start this topic. Unkindly I suspect it was mostly begun and fed by gamers who wanted to cause trouble more than they wanted information. I may have written it was going nowhere and it didn't. Not that most of those who posted against CR did not do so other than to put their prejudiced 2 cents worth in for the 50th time.

NBs has been on the market for 20 years and you should easily have access without spending a Scottish pound.

I don't have access to your rules. So, I wonder if it would be possible for you to post the written rules regarding regulating battalions?

Good gaming.

Bob Coggins

Here's a potential line of inquiry:

"General Hood fell seriously hurt, and General Law succeeded to command of the division, but the well-seasoned troops were NOT IN NEED OF A CLOSE GUIDING HAND. The battle was on, and THEY KNEW HOW TO PRESS ITS HOTTEST CONTENTION." James Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox, pg. 314

Could a general say this about his troops during the Napoleonic Wars ? If so, why ? If not, why not ?
My impression is, is that requirements of closed order formations were greater during the Napoleonic Wars b/c weapon accuracy and engagement ranges were shorter, and therefore a more strict adherence to drill manual regulation was necessary.

Longstreet was aware of the difference. Here are his thoughts on General Lee's attack plan for July 3, 1863:

"His plan was to assault the enemy's left centre by a column to be composed of McLaws's and Hood's divisions reinforced by Pickett's brigades. I thought that it would not do…that the column would have to march a mile under concentrating battery fire, and a thousand yards under long-range musketry; that THE CONDITIONS WERE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE IN THE DAYS OF NAPOLEON, when field batteries had a range of six hundred yards and musketry about sixty yards." From Manassas to Appomattox, pg. 325

In light of the first quote, my first question to Longstreet might be, "If you had at your disposal Hood, McLaws and Anderson's divisions at full strength on July 3rd, would you have made the same arguments against Lee's plan of attack ?

Jim

Bob wrote:
>>>>I am not even going to argue that your argument is not valid, which it is not. There are plenty of things that occurred in war that were not covered by "regulations," and what senior officers and their aides did during battles was one of them.<<<<<<

Bob:
I don't remember saying nothing occurred that wasn't covered by the regulations. In fact there were plenty of those 'things' in the accounts I provided. I gave my opinions on the CR rules I knew of and why. And they were specifically focused on Division Operations and lower, so obviously that doesn't cover 'everything.' I even said that I don't know what was the basic processes for Corps and Army commanders--and gave no opinion on CR rules there.

>>>If as you claim everything in a game is made up, what difference is it to you whether some rules us CR?<<<

Would you agree that a wargame or simulation game is artificial? The rules and mechanics, game pieces and such are 'made up' not for war, but for a game. Therefore an artificial creation. ALL the definitions I have read from Professional Simulation Designers AND Game Designers all say that simulations are artificial environments.

Just like a HO scale train has a toy engine: artifice. However, most are 'modeled' on a real engine and real train cars. That means there HAS TO be some 1:1 relationship between the real and the model for it to actually BE a model, for it to be 'accurate', for it to actually simulate something real.

So, I care that there is a relationship between history and the rules that claim to model it.

>>>I did not start this topic. Unkindly I suspect it was mostly begun and fed by gamers who wanted to cause trouble more than they wanted information.<<<<<

Hmmm. I didn't start the topic either. What information did you provide?

>>>I may have written it was going nowhere and it didn't. Not that most of those who posted against CR did not do so other than to put their prejudiced 2 cents worth in for the 50th time.<<<

Sure it did go somewhere 750 posts 'somewhere'. It also went to another thread. So did you. There are more than 100 posts there. That's somewhere.

If there is a 1:1 relationship between military history and command radius rules, in general or yours specifically, I am more than happy to entertain them. I have seen very little in the way of evidence of what is supposedly modeled by the CR rules. And history is what is being simulated, no?

>>>NBs has been on the market for 20 years and you should easily have access without spending a Scottish pound.<<<

And? I don't think I mentioned NB at all. I bought it and played it, twenty years ago. I've learned a lot about Napoleonic History as well as simulation and game design since then.

I was a professional simulation game designer for over a decade, and my games had to actually work to train people for the real world while being fun, or they weren't used and didn't sell. Oh, and I did design a published wargame more than twenty years ago too.

>>>I don't have access to your rules. So, I wonder if it would be possible for you to post the written rules regarding regulating battalions?<<<<

Wow. I posted several versions of the regulating rules that I have played, both here and on the other thread. Where were you?

Exactly how would posting some more rules make what I have said about Napoleonic and ACW history compared to wargames designed to simulate it any more right or wrong?

Jim:

On your two questions: First, I think that any well-trained and experienced troops of any historical period would prove to be "NOT IN NEED OF A CLOSE GUIDING HAND. The battle was on, and THEY KNEW HOW TO PRESS ITS HOTTEST CONTENTION." I think there are lots examples of that during the Napoleonic wars.

Second, As to what Longstreet would have done, I doubt it, but that's just a guess.

This past weekend after returning from the Peason Ridge live fire range I stopped in at our local hobby shop where a game was being run by one of my mates for some of the sons and a daughter of the military families on base.

I watched awhile as the 12 through 15 year old kids moved their units around the very nice terrain shooting, charging, or attacking as they wished against whatever target appeared. After they got used to the basics of the rules my mate said: "OK, lets play a real game."

He deployed the two sides in a basic historical deployment facing each other across rolling hills dotted with farms, orchards, crops, and copses in full summer regalia. He divided the kids into teams or fairly equal ability and gave them instructions.

One side seemed to understand the "organization" thing better than the other and quickly began to advance against a seemingly disorganized defense in a very nice line of Brigades. One of the defenders sent a couple of units off on an end run trying to replicate his earlier adventures. When the judge told him he would have to either roll a pair of dice to see what the isolated units would do, or write orders in advance for his adventurers after they got out of sight the 15 year old pitched a fit, …which brought about the discussion that centers around what I suspect is really at the heart of this debate in the first place. Wargamers, like the kids in my example, want to be able to control everything they command on the gaming table. It doesn't matter if that is realistic or not, …they just want to do it.

I have to laugh, being a woman, at the verbal contests I've witnessed throughout this thread. OK guys, why don't you just whip "them" out to see who really has the biggest. After that's done perhaps you can figure our if anybody gives a , other than trash someone else's ideas, rules, etc., etc… The children understood in the end and did a fairly good job of "playing by the rules".

Silly Rabbit.

PS We're going to play Napoleon's Battles this week with our professional development group. Austerlitz will be the battle. I'm really looking forward to the game. I like the rules and all 8 players have played them enough to make the game go smoothly. Thanks Bob!

TheScotsman wrote :

>>>>>Oh, and I did design a published wargame more than twenty years ago too.<<<<<

Care to elaborate ? name of this set ?

The Scotsman,

Games are made up but so what? Wargames are played within the parameters of the era which they represent. Obviously one cannot simulate fear which alas leads to recklessness on the table as gamers perceive no downside and suffer no lost reputation or career for a poor performance.

In such instanaces it is up to the rules to provide playable governors that establish parameters within which gamers must operate. One of these is a command system. This is of necessity based on the knowledge and understanding of the era.

Such a mechanic can be of whole cloth such as manditory written orders. Whole cloth because written orders hardly existed and at senior officer level it was understood officers might use their initiative. Thus, manditory orders on the table do not provide the gamer with the "battlefield" choices his historical counterpart had, rather they restrict him from the freedom of action.

Die rolling, initiative points and card turning are pure inventions based on the prejudicial decisions made by the designers. They presume a lack of control that did not exist on the battlefield – until the units started to take casualties. In this presumption many designers and gamers claim these mechanics create chaos, which by its nature cannot be created.

This leaves command radius or the probability that units will follow their orders when within a distance certain of the flagpole. In NBs the location of a senior general on the table is indicative of his command radius, the distance within the 30 minute turn that a senior general can reasonably be expected to be able to contol and change things.

The concept that a general is glued to his location on the table for the scale time of a term at once lacks imagination and understanding. Command radius also indicates a general's roaming range, i.e. where he personally can ride to. Thus, for 30 minutes he could be anywhere within his command radius. The distance at various levels is affected by the lens through which a general views the battle and his staff and aides.

The further from the smoke and noise and death the wider the lens through which the battle is viewed and the greater the responsibility and the larger the staff and the number of aides.

A division general would most likely have only one staff officer and an aide or two. A corps general, especially in the French army, would have a number of staff officers for each department who reported to a chief of the staff. In addition corps generals would have a number of aides to carry orders and do their bidding within the lens through which they viewed the battlefield. Army generals had an even larger staff and more aides to deal with their wider lens.

Now, all of this can be reduced to the distance of a command radius with which honest men can disagree. You may say a senior general may have a radius (roaming range) of 500 yards every turn and I may say 300 yards. Also you and I may disagree about the ability or inability of brigades to move grand tactically outside the radius of its division general. And while we may differ on additional CR rules, it is difficult to refute the location of the senior officer on the battlefield which is entirely up to that officer's decision and which is within the ambit of the gamer in NBs, does not directly effect his ability to control his units. For all of these reasons, CR models what occurred on the battlefield.

As for your access to NBs if you live in the Western World, Australia, Hong Kong or India you should be able to find a copy. If not there is the internet.

Ten years and one game? I have played wargames since 1955 and as an advocation have assisted in the design and development of dozens of miniatures rules and board wargames. Additionally, I have put in easily over 10,000 hours studying Napoleonic warfare since 1960 and own over 200 musket era miniatures rules sets. But when it comes to game design, I am just an interloper. Craig Taylor has consistently made his living designing and developing minatures wargame rules, board wargames and PC wargames for over 40 years. To be clear he makes money doing it, one of a rare bread who does.

Which returns us to "controlling battalions." We looked at and dismissed representing them because they were only one factor, and an automatic one at that, that determined a unit's movement and ability to maneuver. As NBs is a wargame it is the rate of movement that is important, not the process the goes into the distance a unit can move. Thus, "controlling battalions" were built-in just as the number of paces a minute is built-in.

I am sure you covered the length and breadth of your rules governing "controlling battalions" in your various posts. What I have not seen is a paragraph by paragraph section of your written rules which covers "controlling battalions."

Humor me.

Bob Coggins

This thing is beating the move Historicon threads.

Bob, you've written an excellent summation. Thanks again for your rules. As noted above we're playing a game using them this week. We've picked up some additional players including our base commander (General officer) so it should be very interesting. Silly Rabbit (JRTC, Fort Polk, LA)

PS My boss says he met you at Little Wars many years ago.

I thought silly rabbit was done posting …

Bob – Your posts seem to indicate that you think what many of us advocate as the exception to in fact be the rule. Have anything to back that up with? Thus far what I've seen from you is along the lines of: "Of course they ran around constantly!" or "Nappy's Battles is really successful!"

Well, yeah it is, and frankly it is a good game. That said, so is laser tag, not sure that makes it a realistic simulation of anything.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I am finished responding to "the scotsman's posts if you would read my post correctly Bandit.

I don't believe Napoleon's Battles, or most other rules sets that cover the same period claim to be "totally realistic simulations" of the Napoleonic Wars. They are "wargames", with the emphasis on "Games", which you and your group of "nattering nabobs of negativism" seem to keep forgetting. Just like the little kids at the game last weekend…

Oh, and Bandit, laser tag is used by many military organizations as part of their training "simulations" under the name MILES for everything from pistols to tank cannons.

Dismemberment,

Silly Rabbit

Excellent review. However, it seems to me that both you and Sam have failed to address the function of ‘command radius' in a wargame. You have an excellent definition of command radius but should that be replicated in a wargame. It is true that the commanding general has a certain radius by which he can influence the progress of a battle. Beyond that level it becomes the several division commanders responsiblitly to influence the direction of action. But so what? You are the commanding general and you are the several division commanders. When looked at this way, command radius has little actual function. The division commanders are going to perform what the commanding general has in mind because it all comes from the same mind. In other words, why simulate this command structure when in reality there is only a single commander: you. This is warsimulation. The need to recreate an aspect of war simply because it was an aspect of war.

On the other hand, if one has instituted 'command radius' as a limiting mechanism to keep gamers from moving units in an unacceptable manner, then, if you plan to eliminate ‘command radious' it is incumbent upon the game designer to address the underlining issue. So I repeat, is the issue of ‘comand radious' a game issue or a simulation issue?

Rich

[it seems to me that both you and Sam have failed to address the function of ‘command radius' in a wargame. You have an excellent definition of command radius but should that be replicated in a wargame…. is the issue of ‘comand radious' a game issue or a simulation issue?]

Well, I'm not sure if I understand your question, or whether you were addressing me or somebody else (since I haven't posted in about 200 posts), but…

…I have never understood the argument that game mechanisms should try to mimic real-world behavior. It seems utterly impossible, not to mention hypocritically selective.

Our little miniatures can't move their feet. Thus they can't march. We have to pick them up and put them down, instead. So they're never in motion, at all. How is that similar to marching troops?

Real troops didn't stop every 20 minutes, or wait until the end of a game-turn, for a combat to be resolved somewhere else on the field. But we have to divide up our games into turns and segments in order to get it all done, so that's that. Tell me what do turns, or segments, have to do with the way a battle was fought?

Our little guys don't have muskets that can shoot each other. So we roll dice, instead. What does rolling a die have in common with shooting a musket? Sweet -all, that's what. But Okay, dice is what we have to work with, so we'll just roll our dice and make-believe that our little dudes just shot each other.

I could go on and on… real battles don't have a "table edge" that requires special rules when units cross it… real generals can't see the whole battlefield perfectly at all times… real units don't disappear in a POOF when they break, or run away all together in a mob that coincidentally takes the same space as they did when they were formed….

NOTHING about a game has anything to do with a battle. It's all a set of tools for make-believe. And most gamers seem perfectly content with that. I know I am. I'm concerned with getting it to feel about right, according to how I understand the history, and according to what makes for a fun game – since playing in something like real-time is the most important "historical accuracy" for me. If I'm constantly looking up numbers, if things aren't moving along at the right pace, then I can't make-believe, and I don't like that.

The Command Radius is fine with me (obviously, since I've used it in all my games!) But it's just another tool: like creating an arbitrary "game turn" or rolling dice when you shoot a cannon, or anything else artificial that we use, to represent some historical process.

And that's the spirit with which I opened this thread, Lo those many, many weeks ago… I was just wondering if I needed to use this "Command Radius" game mechanic, or if it would be just as much fun and just as historically defensible to do away with it altogether and just say that the Table is the "radius," and would that change anything in terms of gameplay or historical issues.

But for some reason, a few people have selected this one issue and have decided that unless this one thing is done the same way the historical actors did it… then the game is not "historical."

Never mind that they're still doing 47,238 other things in a game that have nothing at all in common with the historical actions that those game mechanisms supposedly represent.

That's why I got exasperated and gave up.

Sam

PS – standby now for the repetition of the old non-sequitur strawmen about, "Well, then let's just play Waterloo with spaceships and dragons!" That one, seemingly, never gets old.

Why, we may as well just play Waterloo with spaceships and dragons!

This thread turned into a prime example of 'the wargamer's obsessive behaviour, and idee fixe'. Some psychologist will probably use it as a case study

Sam – you have reached Legend status for this thread

Connard – That remark gave me a chuckle, but the thread is interesting or you would not have been here to write your post…

Bandit – You need to understand that Laser Skirmish or Normal Skirmish is a well established simulation tool which the Army I was in used to train troops. Security firms also use it in the same way.

Bob – Your post explaining your use of CR's was brilliant, well said.

Scotsman – You really need to let people simulate war in the form and mechanics they prefer, let it go.

Jim – You have done a great job expressing your views on this subject.

Samantha – You are very passionate and rightfully so but please refrain from aiming remarks about "member" lengths into a discussion like this, it was not called for nor needed.

Ned – You, as always are a true voice of calm and reason. Thank you.

Me – I am a stubborn old mule and will continue to "simulate" Napoleonic warfare in the way I always have and enjoy the experience it gives me. I regulate my btlns by the way I move them maintaining alignments, flanks etc. I don't need a set of rules to endorse this other than the "historical" regulations I already use.

Shane

And that's the spirit with which I opened this thread, Lo those many, many weeks ago… I was just wondering if I needed to use this "Command Radius" game mechanic, or if it would be just as much fun and just as historically defensible to do away with it altogether and just say that the Table is the "radius," and would that change anything in terms of gameplay or historical issues.

I can remember back with WRG 3 ed. there was no 'command radius' Your command was the table. The problem was gamers were immediately responding on one flank to events which were occurring on the other flank. As I remember it, command radius was introduced to limit the ability of gamers to be able to respond to events on one side of the table with immediate responses from the other end of the table. Thus, 'command radius' was introduced to alleviate what was a gaming problem not a reality problem.

My confusion was, you were using real world examples for what is, to my way of thinking, a gaming issue. So, back to your immediate question, why not do away with 'command radius'? In order to answer that question you have to go back to why command radius was instituted (generally speaking) in the first place. You will have to answer the issue which 'command radius' was designed to 'fix'. If you eliminate 'command radius' what are you going to place in it's stead to fix the problem 'command radius' was created to fix.

Rich

Silly Rabbit,

Thanks for the kind words. Your boss has the advantage of me.

In the designer's notes we wrote NBs was a balance of playability (the game!) and simulation as well as "fun."

FYI, and your boss, the Napoleonic Association is holding its annual get together in N.O. this fall.

Bandit,

One of a senior officer's jobs was to be where he should be to control his units. The turn in NBs is 30 minutes. It would be unnecessarily burdensome and anti playability to for rules to attempt locate him or his staff or aides at any one momement. Thus, Command Radius equals their roaming distance.

Thanks for reminding that NBs has been successful. Aint it wonderful?

Good gaming.

Bob Coggins

Sam: It was, and still is, an excellent question that you first introduced. And I think Rich Knapton has answered it well. If not CR, then what?

[If not CR, then what?]

Well, since we already have the artificial "end of the world" horizon imposed by the game table, which forces us to make various organizational decisions about how far we can move units (i.e., you can't send General Schlumpfen around the Russian flank, because the Russian flank is anchored on the table-edge)…

…then it seems as if we already have an effective "radius" set up for us, right there.

All that remains, then, is to decide how we want units to move.

The Scotsman wrote:
"On your two questions: First, I think that any well-trained and experienced troops of any historical period would prove to be "NOT IN NEED OF A CLOSE GUIDING HAND. The battle was on, and THEY KNEW HOW TO PRESS ITS HOTTEST CONTENTION." I think there are lots examples of that during the Napoleonic wars."

Scotsman, if you feel like citing some historical examples, it would be great to read them.

Shane, thanks for the encouragement. For the record, you sound like you host a very nice game/rule set. From some of the descriptions you've provided, it seems like it would be a lot of fun to play a side at your table top.

Jim

All that remains, then, is to decide how we want units to move.

Addlebrecht, let me put it this way. Command radius is not about command radius (Vat de hell!?? Vat'd he say???) It is about how we want to move units. It was introduced to limit the near instantaneous movement of a unit from one section of the board to another in a way that was not reflected by any kind of reality. The idea was there must be some amount of time lag between what was happening on one flank to be known on the other and further lag for units on one flank to be commanded and rerouted to assist units on the other flank. There should not be an instantaneous reaction. So if ‘command radius' is gone, what do you plan to use in its place to modify the near instantaneous movement of units in a manner not reflected by any kind of reality?

Rich

[So if ‘command radius' is gone, what do you plan to use in its place to modify the near instantaneous movement of units in a manner not reflected by any kind of reality?]

What I'm saying is: Why are you worried that this particular thing in gaming doesn't reflect reality, when pretty much *nothing* in wargaming reflects reality?

Consider the examples I gave, above: helicopter generals, using dice to represent shooting, using turns and segments, having an "edge of the world" table, etc, etc, etc… None of that stuff reflects any kind of reality, any more or less than a Command Radius.

So why consider the Command Radius some sort of indispensable element of the simulation? Why not ignore it, the way we ignore pretty much everything else? Just go ahead and let all the units move every turn.

(long, deep sigh)

I dropped out of this conversation after the first page, when it became obvious that it was heading into territory distant from the original topic. The answer to the original question became immediately obvious from the start; the gamers who just want a "fun game" (according to their definition of "fun") wouldn't care much, and the gamers who demand more historical congruence from their games would divide into armed camps and lob shells in each others' direction.

Rich,

The idea was there must be some amount of time lag . . .So if ‘command radius' is gone, what do you plan to use in its place to modify the near instantaneous movement of units

Uhhhh, why not use time lag?

And, Sam,

If you really believe that

I have never understood the argument that game mechanisms should try to mimic real-world behavior . . .NOTHING about a game has anything to do with a battle. It's all a set of tools for make-believe.

and if it's true that

The Command Radius is fine with me (obviously, since I've used it in all my games!)

Then why all the pseudo-angst in your original question? Why not just jettison the mechanic if you think it's unnecessary and not look back? What difference would it make to you if it is or isn't, as you say,

just as historically defensible to do away with it altogether

If all that matters to you is . . .

getting it to feel about right, according to how I understand the history, and according to what makes for a fun game

. . . then why bother asking the question in the first place?

Connard Sage, in message #2 of this ridiculously persistent thread . . .

INCOMING!!!!!!
As for the rest? Dunno, but I can see this being a long thread

. . . you are a prophet.

[Then why all the pseudo-angst in your original question? Why not just jettison the mechanic if you think it's unnecessary and not look back? What difference would it make to you if it is or isn't…. why bother asking the question in the first place?]

I mistakenly thought this was a discussion forum. My bad. I'm not sure if it matters or not, since I can't tell if anybody reads these posts before responding to them, but on the off-chance, I'll just repeat what I wrote earlier today:

"And that's the spirit with which I opened this thread, Lo those many, many weeks ago… I was just wondering if I needed to use this "Command Radius" game mechanic, or if it would be just as much fun and just as historically defensible to do away with it altogether and just say that the Table is the "radius," and would that change anything in terms of gameplay or historical issues."

Adelbrecht von Senfschlurken (Sam) Thanks very much for getting to the heart of the issue: "But for some reason, a few people have selected this one issue and have decided that unless this one thing is done the same way the historical actors did it… then the game is not "historical."

We fight Napoleonic and American Civil War wargames on a "minimum" of a 12 foot wide up to as far as a 48 foot wide table seemingly covering much more of a battlefield (with flanks) than your games. Are you saying you want to be able to control units over that wide a frontage.

That's all well and good on a kitchen table, a card table, an 6 foot wide table, or on one of those tiny warhammer game tables, but on most battlefields (with flanks) you are giving the commanders way too much flexibility not using a command radius of some sort.

Perhaps "distance", which in this case means table size, has played a larger part in this discussion than I realized. When I talk about one of our wargames I'm usually talking about a game with exposed flanks since we don't let the table edge dictate anything, because we just move another table against the edge in question, add the correct terrain, and proceed… The limiting factor of the "table edge" in some wargames plays a critical part in gamesmanship and rules lawyering, in my view.

Thanks again for your clarity. Silly Rabbit

Wow! Is this STILL going….

we could ask Bill to re-name it to : Never ending story…could be a movie in that.

Could it be that a small group in sleepy North Devon, UK have the answer to the big rules designer`s problem?

I play a game almost every thursday evening.
Now, apart from the cost of moving units in dispersed commands being more than a concentrated one (similar to the double pip dba movement rule), these rules do not use command radius between its generals and their commands.

The rules use a command card activation system based on
the umpire`s assessment of:

The quality of an army`s general staff capabilities and methods.

The army`s leadership.

And the posture of the army (usually the attacking force in a battle is given more cards than the defending side).

>>>It was introduced to limit the near instantaneous movement of a unit from one section of the board to another in a way that was not reflected by any kind of reality<<<

Well I'll be dammed! I never knew that. Well, WRG Eh? Who would have thought!

At the very least it explains why so many rules have that point about no movement out side of the CR!

The number of things a CR gets to be used for continues to fascinate!

I mistakenly thought this was a discussion forum.

Excuse me; I should have worded the question more clearly.

I never doubted that you intended to start a discussion. I was merely wondering what the purpose of said discussion was intended to be.

You have claimed (repeatedly) that you questioned the desirability and historicity of abandoning the CR mechanic. Contrarily, you have also stated that, as a designer, you're comfortable with the CR; and, you have indicated through numerous comments that historicity is not a high priority for you.

My question (now rephrased for greater clarity) was; since you already had firm opinions on the subject (i.e., you already had a satisfactory answer to the original question), what did you hope to learn from the ensuing discussion? And, did you get it?

It's not indispensable. If the issue of instantaneous movement doesn't bother you then do away with 'command radius'. But this is what I meant by understanding the reason for ‘command radius'.

You have solved the issue by stating that the issue of instantaneous movement is not an issue to be solved. If it is not an issue to be solved you don't have any need for ‘command radius'.

Consider the examples I gave, above: helicopter generals, using dice to represent shooting, using turns and segments, having an "edge of the world" table, etc, etc, etc… None of that stuff reflects any kind of reality, any more or less than a Command Radius.

Reflects: represent (reality) in an appropriate way. Thus using dice is an appropriate way, in terms of gaming, of representing shooting. Using turns and segments is an appropriate way of representing the give and take and passage of time on the battlefield, etc.. ‘Command radius' is also an appropriate way to represent time lag on the battlefield.

I was just wondering if I needed to use this "Command Radius" game mechanic, or if it would be just as much fun and just as historically defensible to do away with it altogether and just say that the Table is the "radius," and would that change anything in terms of gameplay or historical issues."

While is might be just as much fun to do away with ‘command radius' and allow immediate response, it is not a historically defensible move. Suppose we have a miniatures battle where the commanding general commands three divisions: left flank, right flank and central. If the left flank were under attack from overwhelming number of units, the divisional commander would be expected to attempt to reach his commanding officer for reinforcements. The commander, in turn, would send a communiqué to one of his other divisional commanders asking him to release certain units and send the to assist the left-wing division. This is time lag. Without some kind of game mechanism to reflect this time lag, and thereby allowing units anywhere on the table to immediately respond, you have instituted long distance mind-melding by-passing the normal chain of command. "Command radius' or something similar is needed to reflect this aspect movement. Do away with it and don't place anything in it's stead and you have created instant reaction which is not historically defensible. It may be a fun game but it would not reflect any aspect of reality.

War Artisan

Uhhhh, why not use time lag?

War Artisan that's what Command Radius is. It's a concept for implementing time lag into the scenario. There are probably other ways of implementing time lag. Any suggestions?

Rich

No, Command Radius is not time lag to effect limited and localized intelligence. As I understand how its used to keep all units of a specific command level (e.g. all battalions have to be within X inches of the brigader general,…or brigades within a range of a divisional geneal) close to their leader. As long as they are close, they can immediately react to an action in a hidden valley, 5 miles away on the other flank, with scads of Cossacks owning the terrain inbetween. Actually they couldn't.

I don't see the disagreement. You state how 'command radius' is used and I'm addressing why it is needed.

As long as they are close, they can immediately react to an action in a hidden valley, 5 miles away on the other flank, with scads of Cossacks owning the terrain inbetween. Actually they couldn't.

I'm saying basically the same thing. As far as the game goes, they should not be allowed to.

Rich

that's what Command Radius is. It's a concept for implementing time lag into the scenario.

Except that it's not a time lag; it's a spatial restriction.

There are probably other ways of implementing time lag. Any suggestions?

That WAS my suggestion.

For example: All units (or groups of units) are under binding orders. The player observes an event to which he would like to react, and has an unengaged or reserve unit available. When the event is observed by the player (not necessarily by the Commanding General, wherever he is on the table), the player writes an order change for the reacting unit. However (and this is the Big However), the time for the report of the event which triggered the order change to travel to the Commanding General is calculated, and added to the time required for the order change to travel to the reacting unit. During this time, the reacting unit must continue acting on its previous orders, and the Commanding General may not alter the new orders, even if subsequent events prove them to be unnecessary or inappropriate in some way (and if the time lag is big enough, they are almost always unnecessary or inappropriate before the reacting unit can arrive).

In this way, the player's control of units diminishes with the distance, without imposing an artificial spatial limit.

War Artistian.

I agree. That's the way I would like things to be played. It gives the player who puts in an unexpected, successful attack a chance to reap the benefits of his "generalship."
The defender is inhibited from reacting immediately and prevented from starting reserves, realignment etc. from heading to the trouble spot as soon as it shows up- often before the attack has even gone in! It also makes players keep a reserve force in hand to be able to react to such surprises…… Both of these are things that the history and regulations tell that the generals actually did. If I am going to paint all these little guys and try to get the right colors and organization and facings, I would like this also be resemble what was.

If you play with "Zipply Battalions", instant intellegence, and the like- its still a game and fun, so have at it and enjoy.

Silly Rabbit wrote:
>>>I don't believe Napoleon's Battles, or most other rules sets that cover the same period claim to be "totally realistic simulations" of the Napoleonic Wars. They are "wargames", with the emphasis on "Games", which you and your group of "nattering nabobs of negativism" seem to keep forgetting. Just like the little kids at the game last weekend…<<<

SR:
What is a "totally realistic simulation?" It that where people can die playing it? The concept of "totally realistic" in meaningless when applied to a simulation. By definition a simulation isn't 'real', but artificial. Whether they are wargames or not, or whether the designer claims his game capture anything of Napoleonic wars would be entirely up to the designers, I would think. Whether it does what the designer claims it does is the question, whether a whole game, or a particular game mechanic.

Silly Rabbit:
>>>But for some reason, a few people have selected this one issue and have decided that unless this one thing is done the same way the historical actors did it… then the game is not "historical.<<<

I guess you mean me as one of the few. I didn't select the issue. Neither did I say unless 'this one thing is done the same way the historical actors did it, the game is not historical'. Never said it, never implied it, and certainly never thought it. I simply said that 1. The Command Radius rules do not represent what the designers say they do, and 2. my conclusion only applied to Division Level command and lower.

Bob wrote:
>>> Ten years and one game? I have played wargames since 1955 and as an advocation have assisted in the design and development of dozens of miniatures rules and board wargames. Additionally, I have put in easily over 10,000 hours studying Napoleonic warfare since 1960 and own over 200 musket era miniatures rules sets. I have put in easily over 10,000 hours studying Napoleonic warfare since 1960 and own over 200 musket era miniatures rules sets.<<<

Bob:
I had to laugh when Silly Rabbit pointed out we were getting into a ing contest, "my credentials are bigger than yours." She's right. So, in the interest of getting back to the point of this thread, I will freely concede defeat—your's is bigger. I have only been playing games since 1964, assisted in the design of five board and miniature rules, only spent 7,540.6 hours studying Napoleonic warfare since 1968, and only own 100 musket era miniature rules sets. I my defense, I have created and assisted in over 50 commercial simulation designs, as well as consulted with dozens of professional simulation designers from a wide variety disciplines and arenas. So I wasn't totally presumptuous in disagreeing with you.

>>>In such instances it is up to the rules to provide playable governors that establish parameters within which gamers must operate. One of these is a command system. This is of necessity based on the knowledge and understanding of the era.<<<

Yes, I agree. I would think this is where your 10,000 hours of study would come in. I have put up a goodly amount of my research, and that of others too. In regards to Command Radius and regulation. "I have shown you mine, how about yours regarding Command Radius?"

>>>Such a mechanic can be of whole cloth such as mandatory written orders. Whole cloth because written orders hardly existed and at senior officer level it was understood officers might use their initiative. Thus, mandatory orders on the table do not provide the gamer with the "battlefield" choices his historical counterpart had, rather they restrict him from the freedom of action.<<<<

>>>Die rolling, initiative points and card turning are pure inventions based on the prejudicial decisions made by the designers. They presume a lack of control that did not exist on the battlefield – until the units started to take casualties. In this presumption many designers and gamers claim these mechanics create chaos, which by its nature cannot be created.<<<<

Absolutely. Particularly when you say wargames should "provide the gamer with the 'battlefield' choices his historical counterpart had." I am not sure how folks would respond to your dismissal of written orders or initiative as presumption and prejudicial, but that is for other threads.

However, chaos can be and has been created by simulations—there are even simulations of Chaos Theory. Tthere are a number of simple techniques for modeling chaos in any type of simulation, and I am talking about methods proven to work because they have been tested repeatedly against reality. I'd be glad to tell you how it's done.

>>>>This leaves command radius or the probability that units will follow their orders when within a distance certain of the flagpole. In NBs the location of a senior general on the table is indicative of his command radius, the distance within the 30 minute turn that a senior general can reasonably be expected to be able to control and change things.<<<<

Bob, you do know that when you bring the issue of 'probability' into the equation, you are talking about the touch of chaos, don't you?

Here I'd love to see a little of your ten thousand hours of study, a little historical evidence that Napoleonic divisional commanders actually viewed the distance they were from their brigades as the 'measure' of how they could "reasonably be expected to be able to control and change things." You've said that several ways in a number of posts. Where do you see Divisional and lower commands thinking in those terms? Where do you see that thinking being applied in battle?

>>Which returns us to "controlling battalions." We looked at and dismissed representing them because they were only one factor, and an automatic one at that, that determined a unit's movement and ability to maneuver. As NBs is a wargame it is the rate of movement that is important, not the process the goes into the distance a unit can move. Thus, "controlling battalions" were built-in just as the number of paces a minute is built-in.<<<

Ah, not from the evidence I provided. Regulation and conforming weren't simply 'automatic'. It was the primary way divisional commanders could be 'reasonably be expected to control and change things' with regards to divisional movement and maneuver. It also was the basis for the primary form of communication… And when those Corps and Divisional commanders DID get involved, either personally or through aides, the regulation and conforming issues were often what they moved to fix and 'control'.

>>>Now, all of this can be reduced to the distance of a command radius with which honest men can disagree. You may say a senior general may have a radius (roaming range) of 500 yards every turn and I may say 300 yards. Also you and I may disagree about the ability or inability of brigades to move grand tactically outside the radius of its division general. And while we may differ on additional CR rules, it is difficult to refute the location of the senior officer on the battlefield which is entirely up to that officer's decision and which is within the ambit of the gamer in NBs, does not directly effect his ability to control his units. For all of these reasons, CR models what occurred on the battlefield.<<<

Certainly the location of the divisional general was up to the general. I quoted regulations that said as much—They also said there were consequences as well as benefits from moving away from his "Usual and Habitual" post. And I provided a number of ACW examples of that.

>>>One of a senior officer's jobs was to be where he should be to control his units. The turn in NBs is 30 minutes. It would be unnecessarily burdensome and anti playability to for rules to attempt locate him or his staff or aides at any one moment. Thus, Command Radius equals their roaming distance.<<<

Actually, I would think it was a primary job, not just one of several, but that depends on what 'control' encompasses. The 'roaming distance' certainly can be for any amount of time. The problem is that 'roaming distance' didn't define the Divisional Commander's ability to command his entire division. It didn't limit the length of the battle line in his 'control', nor does it represent the primary way he communicated with his division. And as a game mechanic, having players mark the location of aides or the commander moment by moment isn't the only alternative to a 'roaming distance', simple or otherwise.

Please, what historical evidence suggests that this 'roaming distance' was the primary limit to a Divisional Commander's communication, that it determined what units were or were not within his 'control', however you define that. Certainly Division Commanders did leave their post [historical term, not mine] and certainly they sent aides of on communication tasks. My assertion, which I backed with historical evidence was 1. That was not the primary form of communication, 2. they 'usually' did not use it--by their own admission, and 3. when they did go roaming, there were consequences to their control of the division and their communication link with the rest of the Corps. Again, not my assertion, but that of the period military men.

Sam wrote:
>>>Real troops didn't stop every 20 minutes, or wait until the end of a game-turn, for a combat to be resolved somewhere else on the field. But we have to divide up our games into turns and segments in order to get it all done, so that's that. Tell me what do turns, or segments, have to do with the way a battle was fought?<<<<

Sam:
And? You don't understand the way simulations work, or you wouldn't be asking that question. Simulations/wargames have any number of components that have nothing to do with how battles were fought. That is the nature of ALL simulations and games. A researcher programs a computer to simulate the collision of galaxies. He watches little dots of light on a monitor and manipulates them with key strokes. Monitors, computer programs and key strokes certainly have nothing to do with how galaxies behave over thousands of light years. Only very select parts of the process actually simulate those galaxies interactions--and that is why the simulation is valuable.

The same is true of the Army's laser tag/urban tactical exercises. Real urban warfare doesn't have umpires or batteries in backpacks that power little gizmos dotting each soldier's ACUs that go 'beep' when they're shot. Again, they have nothing to do with real warfare. They are necessary for the exercise to simulate a few specific, very real parts of small unit tactics and operations.

That why a simulation is a failure if the participants don't know what those parts are… If you don't know what is being simulated and what constitutes the supporting structure that has no relationship to the actual environment and tasks, then the simulation CAN'T possibly work.

>>>>NOTHING about a game has anything to do with a battle. It's all a set of tools for make-believe. And most gamers seem perfectly content with that. I know I am. I'm concerned with getting it to feel about right, according to how I understand the history, and according to what makes for a fun game – since playing in something like real-time is the most important "historical accuracy" for me. If I'm constantly looking up numbers, if things aren't moving along at the right pace, then I can't make-believe, and I don't like that.<<<<

I have no problem with your games having nothing to do with Napoleonic battle. I have no problem with you creating games of 'make-believe.' More power to you. I play those kinds of games myself.

>>>The Command Radius is fine with me (obviously, since I've used it in all my games!) But it's just another tool: like creating an arbitrary "game turn" or rolling dice when you shoot a cannon, or anything else artificial that we use, to represent some historical process.<<<<

I have always asked you the same question: If wargames are ALL make-believe, then what are you claiming to represent of the historical process? The only thing that make-believe game mechanics can possibly represent is the designer's personal make-believe. Certainly not actual history.

If you are representing something of history, then you are doing more than just 'make-believe.' You have identified some part of history as 'represented' or modeled in the game.

That immediately moves that game 'process' out of the realm of make-believe and into the realm of modeling past reality, mimicking something concrete, outside of personal fantasy. To represent something of reality in an artificial format is what simulations games are all about.

I would think the contradictions would be obvious. You've said the same dichotomous things in many ways over the years. If you state that our wargames "don't simulate anything but pushing lead figures across a table", what could you possibly mean in your designer's notes for Grande Armee when you wrote your game represents "the way it was."

You certainly are free to claim to do both, but it isn't being obtuse or manufacturing controversy, or even some personal vendetta to ask how in the hell that is possible?--particularly when you continually repeat the dichotomy.

Adelbrecht wrote:
"What I'm saying is: Why are you worried that this particular thing in gaming doesn't reflect reality, when pretty much *nothing* in wargaming reflects reality?"

To endorse what War Artisan and Rich Knapton have being arguing.

While you're reading a history of a battle, you have the full picture, i.e.the helicopter view. Often the book is divided up into chapters which represent phases/turns or aspects/segments of the battle in time. Usually you have a maps or battle maps included which are a helpful if not a necessary part for reading this military history. These look like "edge of the world" tables. You read about units marching/fighting in very close, often visual, proximity to one another, the importance of maintaining linear alignments, being supported and having the flanks covered. Lastly, you read about the importance of the battalion, brigade, division, corps or army commander to make decisions and influence the course of the battle in a direct, often physically immediate way. In short, Horse and Musket war gaming reflects the reality of reading military history from the Horse and Musket period. Basically, we want to game what we read. Doing away with the "command radius" and not replacing it with something, while your units are permitted to roam over the table top un-hindered does not jive with the reality of what people have and continue to read in military history.

In many ways, I think military commanders had a perspective on a battle or a campaign similar to that described by the military historian. I also happen to think they had much more control over and understanding of what was going on around them than many would realize or grant as possible. Often that control was exercised through highly trusted and liked minded subordinates acting as command extensions. I think many commanders had a helicopter view of the field--in their minds eye--usually with only their troops fully revealed--I think HIP is great in a game. They had a keen sense of spatial relationships, timing (phases), how long it took to march that far to do this with that number of men (our game mechanics). Operationally, they had to compress large amounts of information (for us the RB & CBT‘s) into a plan while factoring in uncontrolled human variables like what their opponent was doing or not doing. In short, war gaming at its best can be a SAFE way to simulate the stress and excitement of the tactical and strategic decision-making we read about in the military histories.

Some other points to clarify for myself if no one else:

1. Command Radius is a spatial restriction, to prevent units from roaming all over the field. In that way, it is the regulation of the battalions. It doesn't prevent apparent instantaneous reactions across opposite ends of a corps, but if you're using a 30 min. game turn a designer note case can be made that your command relay is in the ballpark.

2. Order Lag Time seems to be a different mechanic from CR. It represents the a player playing the commander, not the compound command through the echelon. It also might suppose that historical command & control was not very tightly exercised by the OR it supposes that the subordinate commanders did not have the initiative to forgo written orders IF new circumstances obliged them to act contrary to those orders. It's an interesting concept. One I've never played before. Might be fun to try sometime

Sam wrote: >"I was just wondering if I needed to use this "Command Radius" game mechanic, or if it would be just as much fun and just as historically defensible to do away with it altogether and just say that the Table is the "radius," and would that change anything in terms of gameplay or historical issues."<

Do you need it? Not as far as I'm concerned. My rules don't use a CR. YMMV.

Could the table be the "radius"? Certainly, at least at some scales of time and distance on certain sizes of tables.

Would it change game play? Well, it'd make it simpler, and easier for players to do what they want (which is often perceived as "fun").

Would it change anything "in terms of … historical issues." Well, that seems to be what all the screaming (er) I mean "discussion" is about.

Have a seat, Sam. Grab some popcorn and/or your favorite brew, and enjoy the show.

We now return you to the regularly scheduled … discussion.

this is all getting too ugly now.

The Scotsman,

Chaos is chaos. Anyone who has taken physics knows you cannot put a number on it, you cannot plan for it and you cannot determine when it will or will not occur based on a die roll.

You've provided no evidence that "controlling battalions" are anything more than process, process that was practiced at drill. Neither have you been able to provide a paragraph by paragraph written rule governing your use of "controlling battaliions."

If as we agree the location of a general was up to the general on the table the location of a general is up to the gamer who controls the general. On the battlefield, senior officers used their experience to know where to be at any one time. Very senior officers, corps or wing, don't care where their division general is or what he is doing or how he is doing it as long as he is doing what he is supposed to be doing, following orders.

As for placing a distance certain on the radius, it of course is a gaming mechanic to enable play. And one of basics of the design of NBs is we made all mechanics so transparent as to allow gamers to change them to their heart's content.

It is one of several jobs of a senior general to be at the right place at the right time during a battle. Battle however is only a minor part of his job, Administering his units and training them are equally important.

Its not me, its Craig Taylor that is the winner. No one but no one in wargame design has his credentials save perhaps Frank Chadwick. When I started out there were no copy machines and the books I was interested in could not be loaned. The result was I spent 10/20 hours a week at the Pratt, Peabody and the Hopkins and on occasion the Library of Congress, tracing uniforms and hand coloring them with colored pencils or pastels and copying texts. Indeed I learned how to do historical reasearch and to read and analyze documents while doing this.

NBs has been around for more than 20 years. The rules are transparent and playable. Yet you presume to represent we don't know our business because we do not represent the process of controlling battalions. I am still waiting to see only a portion of your rules, those regarding controlling battalions.

Humor me, post your rules.

Bob Coggins

oohh please, Bill, show us your great work. I would dearly love to see your design also.

Would you like to see mine Bob?

But not being "funny" now, I`d appreciate your views on my regulating rules.

I can post them on the other thread.

Mike.

I did try for an impartial opinion on this thread by asking my wife which was more important radius or standard regulated method.
But this has merely led to me sleeping on the couch for a week.

Fitz John Porter, Major General

"Advancing with Meagher's brigade (the Irish Brigade), accompanied by my staff, I soon found that our forces had successfully driven back their assailants. Determined, if possible, satisfactorily to finish the contest, regardless of the risk of being fired upon by our artillery in case of defeat, I pushed on beyond our lines into the woods held by the enemy. About fifty yards in front of us, a large force of the enemy suddenly rose and opened with fearful volleys upon our advancing line. I turned to the brigade, which thus far had kept pace with my horse, and found it standing "like a stonewall," and returned a fire more destructive than it received and from which the enemy fled. The brigade was planted. My presence was no longer needed, and I sought General Sickles, whom I found giving aid to Couch. I had the satisfaction of learning that night that a Confederate detachment, undertaking to turn Meagher's left, was met by a portion of the 69th New York Regiment, which, advancing, repelled the attack and captured many prisoners.

After seeing that General Sickles was in a proper position, I returned to my own corps, where I was joined by Colonel Hunt with some 32-pounder howitzers. Taking those howitzers, we rode forward beyond our lines, and, in parting salutation to our opponents, Colonel Hunt sent a few shells, as a warning of what would be ready to welcome them on the morrow if they undertook to disturb us."

…a little later in his narrative

"While Colonel Hunt and I were returning from the front, about 9 o'clock, we were joined by Colonel Colburn, of McClellan's staff. We all rejoiced over the day's success. By these officers I sent a message to the commanding general, expressing the hope that our withdrawal had ended and that we should hold the ground we now occupied, even if we did not assume the offensive. From my standpoint I thought we could maintain our position, and perhaps in a few days could improve it by advancing. But I knew only the circumstances before me, and these were limited by controlling influences. It was now after 9 o'clock at night. Within an hour of the time that Colonels Hunt and Colburn left me, and before they could have reached the commanding general, I received orders from him to withdraw, and to direct Generals Sumner and Heintzelman to move at specified hours to Harrison's Lancing and general Couch to rejoin his Corps, which was then under way to the same point.

These officers were immediately sent to the proper officers, and by daybreak, 2 July, our troops, preceded by their trains, were well on their way to their destination, which they reached that day, greatly wearied after a hard march over muddy roads, in the midst of a heavy rain."

The opposite side of the battlefield earlier in the day…

"…The Southern brigadier decided to meet force with force and ordered the 14th, 38th, and 53rd Virginia forward. Some of Ambrose Wright's men followed the Virginians. Wright told them to stop, then found out Armistead had ordered the advance and put the whole brigade in motion.

Colonel Edmonds of the 53rd Virginia saw Armistead, 'hat off and arm uplifted,' ordering a continued charge, on what he did not know and could not imagine except the main Yankee line. So that is where he went. The commanders of the other regiments did not get any orders (because Armistead did not issue the order), but at least some of their men followed Edmonds toward the crest of the hill."

Bob, the Scotsman is on a quest for "HIS" Holy Grail of wargaming rules to fulfill HIS obsession. He writes well enough, in my view, to produce his own set of rules but my guess is that he would have difficulty getting them published simply due to the cost. My mates and I, over tea yesterday, estimate he will need 15 to 20 pages alone to cover the importance, in his view, of "regulating battalions". Costs as they are I am not sure commercial success would follow though I must admit I would purchase a set for the unit.
Perhaps he and his cohorts could pool their funds to take up the QUEST, which appears to be his only focus based on the effort he has put into his writing on this site and others about the subject. Perhaps we have the privilege of witnessing the birth of a new "Empire", …though somehow I doubt he will be able to produce a commercially sustainable product.

As a warfighter and wargamer I understand the need for a "defined area" where battlefield commanders can exert their influence on the outcome of a battle once the initial plans have been put in motion, and to that end I see "command radius" as a viable means of expressing the sum total of that area. However the writer of the rules in use determines that area is totally up to him, expressing it comes with the privilege of putting his/her name on the rules. Those who disagree may undertake to publish their own rules in rebuttal, opening themselves to the same kinds of criticism, …if they can take it.

Silly Rabbit

Yes, add me to the list of people asking the Scotsman to show us his… er, stuff?

The rules, that is.

Cheers,
Terry

One of the reasons this thread is so long long is that people keep confusing 'command radius' as a perspective of "reality" and 'command radius' as a function of the game. They are not the same thing. That's why I keep asking what is the function of 'command radius'? If you think the answer lies in the analysis of "reality" then the function of 'command radius" is a spatial restriction. HOWEVER, the function of 'command radius' differs when viewed from a gaming perspective. There it is a time restriction.

Therefore, if you are going to discuss 'command radius' you must first decide whether that will be viewed from a "reality" perspective or a gaming perspective. Sam, with his initial question, placed the issue within a gaming perspective. In a gaming perspective 'command radius' is a time issue. If it is eliminated then something comparable should probably put in it's place if you care about the instantaneous (time) issue. If you don't then getting rid of 'command radius' is no problem.

Rich

BACKGROUND INFO…

Historically, there have been two basic responses to the fundamental problems of uncertainty: to pursue certainty as the basis for effective command and control or to accept uncertainty as a fact and learn to function in spite of it.

The first response to uncertainty is to try to minimize it by creating a powerful, highly efficient command and control apparatus able to process huge amounts of information intended to reduce all unknowns. The result is detailed command and control. Such a system stems from the belief that if we can impose order and certainty on the disorderly and uncertain battlefield, then successful results are predictable. Such systems tend to be technology-intensive as in the C3/C4 systems of today.

Detail command and control can be described as coercive, a term which effectively describes the manner by which the commander achieves unity of effort. In such a system, the commander holds a tight rein, commanding by personal direction or detailed directives. Command and control tends to be centralized and formal. Orders and plans are detailed and explicit, and their successful execution requires strict obedience and minimizes subordinate decision-making and initiative. Detailed command and control emphasizes vertical, linear information flow; in general, information flows up the chain of command and orders flow down. Discipline and coordination are imposed from above to ensure compliance with the plan.

In a system based on detailed command and control, the process tends to move slowly: information must be fed up to the top of the chain where sole decision-making authority resides, and orders must filter to the bottom to be executed…

Silly Rabbit