"The "Command Radius"" Topic

Michael,

I'd welcome your ideas. The reason I own and have read or played hundreds of copies of musket era rules is my belief that all are valuable even to the extent they tell you what not to do.

You can send you rules to my email which is rratisbon@comcast.net. That way we will not bore others.

Up front, I am not a fan of cards because they slow the play of the game and because they are based on the interpretation of what one person or a group perceives should happen, placing restrictions on the gamer. I am not a fan of umpires because it is difficult to find them and they are more often than not impractical is for the reason that everyone wants to play.

This doesn't mean that your group is not happy with both nor does it mean they don't provide you with a good game.

Good gaming.

Bob Coggins

Silly Rabbit wrote:

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.

Having read the whole of this thread I have to say that she is not wrong!

Carry on chaps!

Pete

Chaos is chaos.

Chaos = a situation you don't understand.

William Youngblood was a member of Longstreet's Staff. This is what he reports:
"The peach orchard was on Wofford's left and Barksdale's right. General Longstreet from the minute he came into the open where could see Round Top, HAD HIS FIELD GLASSES CONSTANTLY UPON THAT END OF HIS LINE, deeply interested in Hood's efforts."---quoted from The Scotsman, pg. 15 of this thread.

Silly Rabbit,

I have no major argument with your synthesized definition(s) of command & control. I would point out though that information flowed both up and down the chain of detailed command & control, but yes, when it went down it was often accompanied by an order. Commanders, let's say from the division on up during the ACW, made it a point to be in a place where they could see events often more quickly and better clarity than the frontline troops could. I think ratisbon made this point a while back, but for the Napoleonic period. Actually, he did on page 5, where he wrote a number of striking posts worth re-reading. I'll quote a bit of one where I inserted caps:

"As for visibility. Generals do not have to see their units to know where they are on the battlefield in relation to the other formations. They need only a map to draw a picture in their mind's eye. Its called experience and training.
Smoke is another hardy perennial. If you are a foot soldier or company officer you are among it and it is annoying. Artillery doctrine recommends no more than one round/minute in order to allow the smoke to clear. Where the corps and army generals stood, back from the hurly burly of combat to ALLOW FOR VISIBILITY, smoke was an occasional annoyance. Were it more it would be referred to as such but it is not." ---ratison, pg. 5

J.B. Dollar

britishlinescarlet2 05 Mar 2009 12:23 p.m. PST
Silly Rabbit wrote:
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.
Having read the whole of this thread I have to say that she is not wrong!
Carry on chaps!
Pete
==========================================
Vulgarity is vulgarity, whether it comes from someone who says they are a women or from a man. (I have a 30% guess that this poster is a fraud). Please show a little class.
==========================================

1968billsfan, aren't you just a peach.

Often when an individual is unable to come up with an intelligent response to an argument they resort to trying their best to belittle and discredit the person they view as the chief spokesperson (or originator) of the idea or argument that has them so flustered. Think "White House Travel Office", "Jennifer Flowers", or anyone "Billery" thought was about to make them look bad.

And yes, some of you might think I tried to do the same thing to "the Scotsman", but not with the same intent or vehemence as our friend Bill here.

So "Bill", what is your definition of "is"? Silly Rabbit

PS Billy, I've tried to make the Army treat me like any other soldier my entire career, so I have to say "thanks very much" for thinking I'm a man. Can I go kill me some bad guys now Mr. President? SR

This ship, like the Hindenburg, is going down hot and heavy and there ain't a god ed thing anyone can do about it…

Oh the humanity! The humanity!
(or am i thinking of Conrads "Heart of Darkness"? "the horror the horror")

Will it make 1000 posts.

Funnily enough, we ran Waterloo at the club this week, using command radius, and it worked surprisngly well. The French were constrained into a frontal attack and unaccountably managed to replicate both Reilles fruitless assaults on Hougoment as well as D'Erlons disastrous unsupported mass infantry attack. They did eventually batter the Allies into submission, but then Prussians turned up and rolled the lot up.

Command radius – quick, easy, works well in a design for effect sort of way. You know it makes sense;-)

Heres hoping for 1000 posts. The 1000 post raid. A Thread which will last 1000 posts.

Is this the thread that sank a Thousand Pots?

Pat

I think this is the best thread ever, I wonder if it will hit 20 pages too.

At this rate though, 'Why does everyone hate the English' is going to top it.

Will it make 1000 posts.

The question should be "when" will it make 1000 posts.

And, it has over 15,000 hits since its inception.

Hate to point this out fellas but if you count the Regulating Battalion splinter thread, it already has!

from an earlier post…

"…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."

later in the narrative…

"Armistead's advanced position helped Lee decide how to coordinate an assault if the supposed artillery concentration had its desired effect. If and when Armistead saw a Yankee retreat, he could signal the rest of the army to advance. Marse Robert told Robert Chilton to draft an order to that effect. Chilton's order read as follows: 'Batteries have been established to rake the enemy's lines. If it is broken, as is probable, Armistead, who can witness the effect of the fire, has been ordered to charge with a yell. Do the same.'

This order is ludicrous on its face, and it seems incredible that Lee told Chilton to write it that way or approved it after it was written…despite Longstreet's written testimony that Lee indeed had this plan in mind. The signal for the attack was ridiculous. A shout raised from one part of the line could be the result of any number of things…including a Yankee success prompting a yell from the Northerners. IN THE DAYS BEFORE STANDARD TIME IT WAS HARD TO COORDINATE AN ADVANCE, but Lee could have been with Armistead to observe the Yankees himself. If they began retreating he could order an advance with the troops near him, and Jackson's left (the farthest point from Armistead) was less than a mile and a half away. A COURIER WITH ORDERS COULD REACH IT EASILY EVEN BY KEEPING TO ROADS AND GOING BACK TO GLENDALE.

Lee's proper position was with Armistead if that was the best observation point. Armistead might have been a brigade commander for only four months, but he was a lifelong soldier and probably would not mistake the replacement of one battery by another for a retreat. Even so, Lee should have been there. It was the decisive point, and thus the place for the Army commander. No one but Lee should have made the decision to attack or not to attack.

No time was written on the order, just the date. As with Magruder's wrong turn, this omission might not have severe consequences, but it might contribute to confusion in newly arrived units for a commander arriving late night and not knowing whether the order was still in effect or had already been executed. To improvise a plan is dangerous, albeit usually necessary, but to improvise a plan and then communicate it through a strange order with no time written on it is to invite disaster."

From Extraordinary Circumstances, "press forward your whole line…"

Silly Rabbit

Trajanus wrote:

"Hate to point this out fellas but if you count the Regulating Battalion splinter thread, it already has!"

Not to mention the two different "Close the CR thread" spinoffs.

When units are under fire and the friction of warfare is at its highest things that normally (on the parade ground or when a unit isn't under fire) don't go wrong, do go wrong.

If anyone has taken the time to read the posts I made directly quoting commanders or from well written and documented sources you will find examples of "things gone wrong" on historical battlefields.

My point is that "things go wrong" much more than "things go correctly" and commanders don't have control of their forces all the time. This doesn't fly well with wargamers unless they really know the reality of a battlefield and want to duplicate (simulate) that confusion and pressure as part of a learning experience, a training exercise, or simply to challenge their abilities.

Some wargamers enjoy the uncertainty of a more realistic game, others do not. Falling into the latter category are most of the Warhammer or competitive gaming crowd to whom gaming is not about historical accuracy or the feel of the period, but is about winning.

Game designers have to chart their course very carefully depending on the audience they are looking for. The absolute historical accuracy crowd, like the Scotsman and his supporters, make up a very small part of the hobby supporting public. The Warhammer and competitive gaming crowd is a much more lucrative market. It doesn't take a marketing degree to see which market most game designers target.

Fanatics, like the Scotsman, his mentor, and supporters, absolutely know the above to be true, yet they get on TMP and attempt to convince gamers who are perfectly happy using enjoyable commercially successful rule sets by many individuals who understand the gaming audience, that they are somehow flawed individuals, too uneducated or stupid to "see the light" only they and their "way" can bring to historical gaming. What a crock!

If historical wargaming, outside the small "club" of close friends atmosphere, is to survive new bodies (and minds) must be drawn into the ever decreasing historical gaming population (you're dying off). The current crop, with their prepainted, primed, or unpainted, Warhammer armies hacking and slashing their way toward some "golden demon tournament" award isn't going to play "the Scotsman's way" no matter how well he explains his heartfelt concepts. They are going to play games using commercially successful rules that they can adopt easily, …like Volley & Bayonet, Napoleon's Battles, etc., etc. (please don't be offended if I've left out your favorite set).

This thread and its supporting thread on Regulating units is a wonderful source of ideas about what rules might work, and some of the thinking behind them. It is too bad it displays all of the faults that keep many new players from trying the Napoleonic period.

Being bludgeoned with a concept, no matter how wonderful that concept is, is still being bludgeoned. The simple fact the Scotsman doesn't have a written workable set of rules, even in draft form, incorporating his ideas raises a red flag. Shane on the other hand freely admits his home grown rules are in a state of flux and perhaps may never be published, …but he has the guts to put his ass on the line with written and recorded ideas. I respect that and support his right to succeed or fail in the court of public opinion ("retail sales" perhaps one day).

Wargaming is a "tiny" hobby. Napoleonic wargaming is an even smaller part of a very small portion of the hobbiest population. For Napoleonic gaming to survive and grow the community needs to be more open to new ideas and systems that bring potential gamers into it, …rather than elitist, overly detailed, and closed.

Silly Rabbit

Silly Rabbit wrote:

"And yes, some of you might think I tried to do the same thing to "the Scotsman", but not with the same intent or vehemence as our friend Bill here."

The Pot calls the Kettle black.., and then "Bill"… and then the diminutive Billy… but self-righteously assures all that it is not done with the same vehemence and intent that SR believes others obviously have.

And I, apparently, am a fanatic…

My point is that "things go wrong" much more than "things go correctly" and commanders don't have control of their forces all the time.

As soon as units make contact with the enemy, their higher commander has lost (complete) control of them. In gaming terms, this means that a unit that is in a melee or a fire fight is not subject to the player's whims. It's fate is in the hands of the dice gods.

Further, it means that coordinating widely separated units is almost impossible, especially in the age before radios -- even with the field telegraph in the ACW it seldom happened. Somebody is always too slow, or too timid, or something unexpected pops up to interfere. That's one reason I use activation by cards -- so a player cannot coordinate his entire force all at once; he can only do something with part of his force before fate, or his opponent, intervenes. It is, admittedly, an abstraction, but as Sam pointed out, so is just about everything we do in a game/simulation.

SR wrote:
>>>>>My point is that "things go wrong" much more than "things go correctly" and commanders don't have control of their forces all the time. This doesn't fly well with wargamers unless they really know the reality of a battlefield and want to duplicate (simulate) that confusion and pressure as part of a learning experience, a training exercise, or simply to challenge their abilities.<<<<<

SR:
I don't remember anyone on this thread arguing that the battlefield wasn't confusion, or that pressure wasn't or shouldn't be a part of a training exercise, or that it shouldn't challenge participants' abilities. However, that "things going wrong more often than not" suggests that gamers should see more than 50% of their game play go wrong if it is going to simulate a battlefield experience. Correct?

>>>>>Some wargamers enjoy the uncertainty of a more realistic game, others do not. Falling into the latter category are most of the Warhammer or competitive gaming crowd to whom gaming is not about historical accuracy or the feel of the period, but is about winning.<<<<

I know some folks who play historical gaming whose primary focus is winning. Not surprising when they are playing a game.

>>>>Game designers have to chart their course very carefully depending on the audience they are looking for.
The absolute historical accuracy crowd, like the Scotsman and his supporters, make up a very small part of the hobby supporting public.<<<

Man, you haven't been listening to a single thing I have said if that "The absolute historical accuracy crowd" is your conclusion. Where in the hoo-ha did you get that? I have never asked for, suggested that there has to be 'absolute historical accuracy' in anything. I am happy with 'in the ball-park'… We have been only talking about one game mechanic 'Command Radius'and what that represents in history, right? I think Sam is the one that questioned it's actual connection to Napoleonic history--and he certainly isn't in that 'absolute' crowd you speak of.

I was focused on divisional commanders' CRs--that's it.

>>>>The Warhammer and competitive gaming crowd is a much more lucrative market. It doesn't take a marketing degree to see which market most game designers target.<<<<

Gosh, I know some Warhammer folks that would be rather incensed that you have grouped them with 'the competitive gaming crowd'.

>>>>Fanatics, like the Scotsman, his mentor, and supporters, absolutely know the above to be true, yet they get on TMP and attempt to convince gamers who are perfectly happy using enjoyable commercially successful rule sets by many individuals who understand the gaming audience, that they are somehow flawed individuals, too uneducated or stupid to "see the light" only they and their "way" can bring to historical gaming. What a crock!<<<<

Holy Moly. I'm a fanatic, with a capital 'F'. I don't remember telling perfectly happy individuals, understood by 'successful' game designers, that that they are:

1. Flawed individuals
2. Too uneducated or too stupid to see the light
3. And that only I can provide the 'way'

I simply said,

1. Games should do what game designers claim they do, no
more and no less.

2. What the designers have created shouldn't be a guessing
game of 'what does this mechanism represent in history?'

3. That if a game designer claims to have represente some
aspect of history in his game, he and we should
be able to identify it in the historical accounts--somewhere.

4. Simulation design isn't some mystery that only a select
few can understand, or just someone's opinion, but a
concrete set of concepts and methods for really,
functionally simulating parts of reality. It's done all
the time in the real world, particularly in
the commercial gaming industry--outside of wargaming.
And they're REALLY successful, in the billions of
dollars, so when they create wargame simulations, they
must REALLY understand those gamers.

5. It would be easy to establish #1. and #2. if game
designers employed a few of the more basic simulation
design technology developed by those professionals.
While I have used the technology, I didn't create it.

6. And if the designer used a few of those concepts and methods
mentioned in #4 did, gamers would have a much better idea
of what they are getting and the hobby would be better
for it. If nothing else, we'd gain some coherence and truth
in advertising. Few thought such a thing was a 'bad idea'
for other kinds of hobbies and toys simply because
without it, people were still buying the toys.

It certainly would avoid a lot of the hyperbolic accusations we've seen here. We could also better reduce the urge to turn any technical question regarding a game mechanic like Command Radius and what it can represent into mindless character assassination.

When there is no accepted, concrete notions of what it means to 'wargame history', then any and all questions about it devolve into questioning someone's intelligence or their 'right' to have an opinion.

Which is why--for instance--when I questioned what the Command Radius actually represented, Bob C. felt I was questioning his entire game, his 10,000 hours of study etc. etc. when I hadn't even mentioned NB, nor would I have except Bob kept insisting that because his game was popular, and that he had worked on lots of games, I had reason to question his or the CR rules other than a desire to personally attack him.

I simply based my conclusion on my reading of history and offered examples, and invited counter examples and arguments. That isn't even close to what Bob or others have offered. Lots of 'this is how it is' and 'I've designed wargames longer than you have,' but nothing specific other than the number of yards from a commander and the speed of a horse.

So, Silly Rabbit, you are free to believe I am the anti-christ.

Now, can we get back to actually talking about what the Command Radius, particularly for Division commanders and lower officers, actually represents?

Or even Corps Commanders and the CinC, which I never offered an opinion on, because, as I said, I'm not sure what their job was or how they accomplished it.

Or can we talk about what components do and don't make up a simulation? You know, technical questions about games, simulations and history, not your or my character flaws…

Anything else if a waste of time and definitely OT.

Shane and Silly Rabbit,

I should clarify that my comment wasn't about laser tag as a serious military simulation training method, it was about laser tag as eight kids running about the basement.

Frankly, while unintentional, I think this goes to the matter of "just a game with figures." Sure, game or simulation, the props don't matter so much as the philosophy.

With regard to the last post from Silly Rabbit – 1. I swear I read like 4 pages ago that you were all done posting here. Curious that you still are. 2. I like how you say that Napoleonic Wargaming needs to be open to new ideas to survive while telling us all looking critically at some game mechanics is bad.

Couple weeks ago Steve Balmer said that people would have more choices if they all chose Windows [Mobile]. Seemed like sorta a curious thing to say. Your posts come across as similar to me, "stop looking for new things, you'll have more new things if you just use the already existing things." Ahuh.

Can someone clue me in as to why the only valid opinion appears to have to come from someone who has written and published a rules set? And Silly Rabbit complains of elitism – funny stuff, that rabbit really is silly.

Cheers,

The Bandit

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

Care to elaborate ? name of this set ?

Shane:
It was a board game "Napoleon's Last Triumph" on the battle of Wagram, published by Simulations Canada in 1984, IIRC. It sold out, and WWW was going to pick up my Waterloo game with the same mechanics when I was hired as an educational consultant and trainer for a national training corporation, which closed down my ability to game design while raising a family etc. In some ways, it was a good thing. I got into designing training designs, going to simulations conventions and seminars, really learning what it was all about. Again, I have designed better than 50 training simulations and helped on many more.

After I became VP for their Western Region, I decided that I'd rather work that hard in my own consulting business, which I have since the mid-1990s.

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

BD:
Well, Austerlitz is filled with examples on the French side, and attempts on the Allied side. Some of the question would be exactly what you see as qualifying as 'knewing how to press its hottest contention" without "a guiding hand."

For me, a great deal of the fighting around Tellnitz and Sokolnitz provide great examples: [Robert Goetz's book "1805:Austerlitz" describes any number of instances.]
Of course, chosing the Grande Armee in 1805 as the troops not needing a close guiding hand, is probably cheating a bit….

Anyway, on the French side, the battalions of the 108th demonstrated they knew how to press an attack without a guiding hand.

on the Allied side, the Hessen-Homburg Cheveaulegers positioned themselves and attacked a battalion of the 108th
which had 'pressed the attack' without orders other than their colonel.

Scotsman wrote:
"For me, a great deal of the fighting around Tellnitz and Sokolnitz provide great examples: [Robert Goetz's book "1805:Austerlitz" describes any number of instances.]
Of course, chosing the Grande Armee in 1805 as the troops not needing a close guiding hand, is probably cheating a bit…."

Would be interested to know if they kept their formation or how tightly they kept it. Were they still using massed volleys or firepower or were they skirmishing en masse ?

Thanks, for the book rec.

BD

Bill,

All I can say after 823 posts on this thread plus the several hundred on the others is that I would not ever want to face you across the table, I believe you would nit-pick everyone if they dare did one little thing that was not historically accurate according to the Scotsmans idea of historical correct simulation.

It is useless to discuss this kind of thing over the net without the visual aid of just what you do in your groups, Bill you keep on insisting you and only you are correct, that is fine, but I am pretty much done here. It is useless to talk with you, I fear you are indeed a rules lawyer.

over and out.

Chaos is chaos.

Chaos = a situation you don't understand.

I should refine that. Chaos is any situation or phenomenon that is too complex for you to understand.

Mees all-a-time ready, gots gnew anvil all chiny. Moma bring tu-day. Mees-a got my Austrikans all lyned up, rdy to go ta war wif dem Frenchys.

Skotsman say my anvil not gud unuf, aint no simm-a-nation. Not nuf dadda. Silly rabbit, daddas don play littl sold-r-boyz, we be kids, play sold-r-boyz. Our game, play sold-r-boyz. Hippity-hop, bi-de-bi. Silly

Now see what you guys have done!
You've broken 1968billsfan.

How can you tell?

Well I am not even sure what this post is about now but the one thing it isn't about any more is Command Radius.

I can see the reason for it far better than some rules that only allow a certain amount of Command Action Points and once they are gone that is it.

No more moving or any other action from your units. This is really "REALISTIC". No bad you did not roll the dice better to get more actions points.

Oh and yes I hate any and all Rules that use any sort of CAP's to control the game.

But I am okay with rules that have Command Radius for Division, Bde and Corps Cdrs. This is far more "REALISTIC" than Command Action Points.

Shane,

I doubt (don't really know I spose) that Scottsman would nitpick a game during play. There is a big difference between asking these questions and positing answers in a forum of discussion about them than nitpicking a game you've chosen to play during play.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Shane:
Actually, across the table I play the game--and anyone that has played with me knows that I am hardly a stickler for following the 'the letter of the rules'. In fact, with most any dispute I will simply ask what the other person thinks should happen, and do that. However, there was that one night during a storm in '02 when the lights went out….

The way I figure it, if I have come to the table knowing what rules folks are playing, then I am committed to that, not nitpicking them during the process. I have played NB and GA and many other rules sets and enjoy them for what they are. I certainly will give my opinion on something if asked, but I'm there to enjoy the game and the company--and the beer. Talking history is part of the fun.

Then again, I hope you'll understand if I feel some trepidation coming to the table across from you when you require folks to be educated in 'the right way to do it' before you'll let them play.

However, because I play the game in front of me doesn't mean I swallow everything without question. And as Bandit says, this forum is quite different than playing a miniatures game. I obviously will question the military history designers claim their game mechanics represent--that is, when they actually tell us what they've done to achieve their 'historical accuracy'.

As for nitpicking, a simulation process modeling the dynamics of regulation and conforming during the Napoleonic wars would have to be a rather detailed--nature of the beast, don't you think? On the other hand, I am not sure what I was 'nitpicking'. What exactly was a minor detail that I picked at? The only thing I can see is that you felt the entire issue of regulating was a minor detail and already represented in most games by simply moving the stands of miniatures.

I disagreed because the dynamics of the whole thing isn't modeled by simply moving stands. The actual functions, which Mike and Bragration have expressed more simply than I is far more structured than simply moving stands in a particular order. I tried to give a detailed explanation, along with battlefield examples of how un-minor the issues were for the combatants. Too much detail?

Shane, is my crime to insist 'I am right' or simply not agree with you on a couple of points? I have insisted on two things: The regulation system worked 'this way'. That is according to the historical evidence I have found. I am more than happy to compare the evidence to come to a clearer understanding of how it was done.

That is what this is all about:
Modeling how the historical military men did it--in some fashion that provides the same challenges. I have provided lots of examples and more if you are interested. The second thing I insisted on is that there are certain things that have to be done for a game to actually simulate something. Not a whole lot, but some critical points. There again, I am more than happy to provide the technical methods for that.

Martin Rapier wrote:
>>>Will it make 1000 posts.<<<<

We can only try.

>>>Funnily enough, we ran Waterloo at the club this week, using command radius, and it worked surprisngly well. The French were constrained into a frontal attack and unaccountably managed to replicate both Reilles fruitless assaults on Hougoment as well as D'Erlons disastrous unsupported mass infantry attack. They did eventually batter the Allies into submission, but then Prussians turned up and rolled the lot up.<<<

Martin R.
The French certainly were constrained, but during the actual battle, a command radius, however you want to define it, or however simple and easy it was to play, had *nothing* to do with why the French were constrained [And chose to be constrained] or why the frontal attacks were made--or how the attack on the Hougomount was made.

Nothing. That radius doesn't correlate to anything that actually influenced commanders to 'bunched up' their commands or committed mass attacks. Nor do the rules provide any other options that the real commanders would have had as alternatives.

Game rules certainly can force players to do all sorts of things so as to 'look like' the real thing. Your game did. That doesn't mean the rules have anything to do with WHY the actual combatants chose those formations or attacks. It certainly wasn't some fear that if a division deployed too far from the commander they would be out of command or communication would be hampered in some way. The French I Corps didn't bunch up because of some belief they would be 'too spread out for the divisional commanders to control them.'

It is like forcing all baseball players to suffer two strikes because that is the national average. Or to recreate the 1972 World's Series, all ball players have to foul away twice each inning. That might *look* like baseball, and it really would make for a faster game, but it certainly wouldn't play like the game of baseball at all. That is what many "design for effect" rules do. They enforce the 'effects', but not the causes or options that make baseball what it is, or Waterloo what it was.

A wargame is suppose to give you the same options as the original generals, not force you to act a certain way because it is easier or simpler, or 'looks like' the original battle.

Because, Donlowry, what billsfan is writing doesn't make much sense.
Oh.
I get your point.
regards
Max

Don,

"Chaos is any situation or phenomenon that is too complex for you to understand"

Illogical, Captain – There are many situations that I don't understand but that's often because of lack information, not complexity.

They might be to complex but that is not a condition for them being chaotic.

Chaos is defined by its apparent random nature. Complexity may be an element but it is not a requirenment.

Don,

Forgot to mention that apparent Chaos can also be due to a lack of Situational Awareness.

If we want to take this thread past 1000 I'll start on battlefield implications of that one, if you fancy it!

I dunno about chaos but this thread DEFINITELY went over the edge at least 10 pages back.

The Scotsman,

I'm still waiting to be humored with your rules.

In the old series The Prisoner he blew up the computer by asking one question, "Why?" Good lawyers do not ask it and criminal and civil investigators don't ask it and sane wargame designers should never ask it, because it goes to motive which is between the individual and his God.

Its a wonder The Scotsman your head doen't explode like the computer, trying to answer an unanswerable question.

Guys,

Chaos aint anything but chaos. It can only be defined by itself. The very attempt to create it in any manner is anti-chaotic for the word create indicates a plan and chaos cannot be planned.

Bob Coggins

"Maxshadow 06 Mar 2009 6:04 p.m. PST
Now see what you guys have done!
You've broken 1968billsfan.

donlowry 06 Mar 2009 6:10 p.m. PST
How can you tell?"

Actually, I just cut and pasted a post from "silly rabbit." Most posters are trying to champion some point of view. A few are just sniping at the old fools playing games.

Oh thats a relief 1968billsfan.
I thought it had all become too much and you'd started talking gibberish.
regards
Max

Trajanus wrote:
"…apparent Chaos can also be due to a lack of Situational Awareness.If we want to take this thread past 1000 I'll start on battlefield implications of that one…"

Since it was your mention of "regulating battalions" on page 1 of this thread that helped get us here, I would suggest you give Situational Awareness its own thread if anyone else wants to discuss it. :^)

Bob,

I'll target this at you this time since 1. no one else has answered and 2. you're the latest to push the notion:

Why does someone's opinion need to be backed up by the act of writing a rules set in order for it to get any traction with you or others on this thread?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bob wrote:
>>>I'm still waiting to be humored with your rules.<<<

Well, I am not going to drop everything to rush them out just for you. You will have to get your laughs some other way in the meantime.

>>>In the old series The Prisoner he blew up the computer by asking one question, "Why?" Good lawyers do not ask it and criminal and civil investigators don't ask it and sane wargame designers should never ask it, because it goes to motive which is between the individual and his God.<<<

Hmmm. Am I the computer, or are you? I thought I asked the question 'Why?'

>>>Its a wonder The Scotsman your head doen't explode like the computer, trying to answer an unanswerable question.<<<

If it is 'unanswerable', whatever question you think I have been asking, why are you so put out that I don't accept YOUR answer?

>>>Chaos ain't anything but chaos. It can only be defined by itself. The very attempt to create it in any manner is anti-chaotic for the word create indicates a plan and chaos cannot be planned.<<<

So speaks Bob. Yet, many, many simulation designers model it just the same, and for some reason--probably because they haven't talked to you--they come up with methods for simulating that ACTUALLY model reality, can accurately predict future chaos. Chaos can be an element of any simulation process.

But hey, don't take my word for it. [Knowing you won't], check it out. Go to google and type in "Chaos Simulations". You will get several hundred thousand pages, and even a 'few' that directly relate to games.

Chaos on the battlefield isn't a singular event with no relation to what is going on. It happens TO something, often for some reason, often intentionally if caused by the enemy--regardless of, or because of its unexpected nature.

If chaos strikes a unit, it will be experienced in certain ways, as unpredictable as the event may be when it happens. Units on the battlefield 'tend' to go chaotic in certain ways and often at certain weak points. So while there will always be an element of chaos that simply can't be anticipated or modeled, a good portion can, and has with verifiable methods with simulation mechanics that can be used in any game system. And when I say verifiable, I mean simulation systems with this 'chaos' have been tested against reality, so that the METHODS are proven as well as the particular simulation.

What do you think you are doing when your NB game has players roll to see if something happens? Chance is a form of chaos in game terms. You are attempting to model a portion of chaos, regardless how small. You know, the unexpected, the unpredictable, the entropy in the system. And you are picking a particular point in the game process to introduce it.

Of course, all this stuff seems to be just nonsense to you. No questions, no curiosity. Somehow it's just me personally being a bother.

>>Somehow it's just me personally being a bother.

Well, you >have< managed to get Sam Mustapha & Bob Coggins to agree, which is something I've never seen! You appear to be a unifying force, even if only in a negative sense.

I must admit, though, I too would like to see how you propose to do all these things you have so often, and at such great length, claimed are easy and necessary to do for "simulations." I remember your exchanges with Sam, many years ago in M-WAN, and if memory serves you were saying much the same thing then. As Shane and the Silly Rabbit and others have noted, somebody with as much to say on the subject as you have, for as many years as you have, seems rather oddly unwilling to commit to putting out your own version for the public to use and evaluate.

Not that you need to care whether or not I take you seriously, but at present I'm rather inclined not to, until I've seen you demonstrate, as these other gentlemen have done, the practical application of your ideas.

Cheers,

Terry

>>>Since it was your mention of "regulating battalions" on page 1 of this thread that helped get us here<<<

Hey! Why blame me! :o)

COMMAND RADIUS RULES

I should probably restate my criticisms of theCommand Radius rules at the DC level for both Napoleonic and ACW rules. The Command Radius rules assume that whatever influence is being represented by the 'radius', it is related to command control and communication in some form. It also assumes that the limit to that control is the speed of a horse within a set amount of time, whether the general and/or his aides are involved.

Originally, it also represented the area that a group of units under a particular command *should* stay within to remain 'in command', however that was represented or shaded by a particular set of rules.

Here are the historical problems with those assumptions for Divisional commanders.

1. Did the distance from the Divisional commander [assuming he is at his post in the center] influence the length of a battle line or or the formations chosen?

NO. Nothing I have read suggests this distance was a reason for restricting the length of a line or in the deployment of particular formations. Communication distance does not seem to be viewed as a limit to command formations or the length of a battle line.

2. Did the divisional commander have the ability to influence every unit equally in his division within a set amount of time [say 30 minutes] --on a regular basis?

NO. Not only was this a physical impossibility even with the two or three aides he might have, but there were strictures for NOT getting involved at a lower level, because it could 'mess up the communication' and because it would take the commander away from his real job, the division.

Did DCs interact and order around individual brigades and regiments. You bet, but far less than the rule suggests, and usually only when the primary communications system failed.

3. Was the use of aides or personal contact the primary form of communication between a DC and his division during maneuver and combat.

NO. Note I say 'primary'. That means the basic process, the first choice, the expected or habitual method. Of course, when this primary method failed, the DC got the job done in whatever why he could, but that often made him less capable of controlling the whole division, and harder to find and communicate with when he did.

4. Were officers in a formation concerned that they would be 'out of command' or in some way at a disadvantage in maneuver and combat because of how far away from the center of the division [or the DC] they were?

NO. That concern doesn't seem to have been on their radar at all. They definitely had command concerns and issues they spoke of in the accounts, but that wasn't one of them.

They certainly spoke of such distances if they became detached from their parent formation, or given a detached mission, but that detachment was the concern, not the particular distance from the DC or the center of their division.

Command Radius rules don't provide players at the DC level with the processes, problems or options of the actual officers. It rewards players for keeping within X distance from the center of a division, which was neither a concern of officers, nor the actual battlefield reasons for keeping a tight formation, when they did.

For instance, when Hood is wounded and Laws takes command on the right of the division with his brigade, he doesn't communicate with the rest of his division until he reaches the Big Round Top and looks back and sees the division's progress. He sees it struggling without flank support. [And at the distance of a mile or more you might want to ask how he could tell that--another issue] He says he "halted my line" and then hurried to McLaws on the other end of his division. He doesn't go to each brigade and tell them to stop, he doesn't send aides, or even leave his position to halt it, somehow he simply 'halts' it BEFORE moving off to find McLaws. Then he personally goes to McLaws at the far end of his division.

When both Benning, Anderson, and Semmes are committed, the divisional commander is nohwere to be seen, nor does he send a message. Yet three-fourth of the the I Corps' second line is committed to battle without them. Never a question about being 'out of command' or whether they should move because the divisional commander wasn't there. Certainly never an official or unofficial reproach for moving. Why? Is this the norm, or is it a trait of the ANV, or some other reason.

What is clear is that the distance from the DC is never raised as an issue, never considered in what is occurring, and never influences the brigade commanders' decisions to expand the Divisional battle Line from about 800 yards to well over 1600--nor does it seem to have concerned Laws.

Whether Command Radius has some resonance with the work of the Corps and Army commanders, I don't know. I am certainly willing to entertain any ideas on that score.

Becks Dark:

I got started on this particular thread and not written orders or others, because I had some definite thoughts and evidence regarding the subject, CRs. I was expecting an exchange of ideas and historical evidence regarding CRs. This all seems to have been ignored because 1. I thought I was right, regardless of the evidenc, and 2. I haven't designed a wargame.

This demand that I produce a set of wargame rules is more wolves asking for red meat than any design or intellectual curiosity. I posted three different game mechanics for regulating units, for instance, from simple to complex--not one single comment from the wolves.

Notice a few things here: I have produced a commercial wargame in the past, so that isn't really an issue, is it? Others on this list who have produced commerical wargames have said many of the same things I have, so what I have said isn't all that outlandish.

This game request is simply a way to avoid the issues I raised--none of the 'wolves' howling for my game design have offered any--any historical evidence to support what they say about CRs.

One of the issues being the fact that all that I am saying is easily accessible without me producing a game to prove it--if they really cared to know. If they cared to check. They don't.

If ONLY those folks that have published commercial games can question [or even ask for]the history claimed to be modeled by the game, then I can see most of us better either get off the TMP lists or pick up our pompoms and decide which game to cheer for unconditionally, because there would be few other options than talking about base sizes and button colors.

Am I required to ignore all that I know about history, simulations and game design when wargame designers say things that are untrue, unsupported by historical evidence that I can see and/or wildly contradictory about both games and simulations? Is the point of this hobby to be brain-dead and totally lost in make-believe? I enjoy the make-believe as much as the next gamer, but I like to know where it starts and ends, rather than it being a required universal hobby experience.

I suppose that in such an environment anybody can say anything they want and no one would be justified in asking "Why?" or "Where did you get that idea?"

I doubt that is what you are suggesting, but when Sam starts this thread by questioning the whether the CR rules actually represent history and ends up saying games are all make-believe and don't represent anything, [something he has repeated in different ways, from MWAN to this thread], I don't see myself being any more insistent than he when I say "What?" after each such statement. Never have gotten an answer.

If, after 10,000 hours of study, Bob can't provide one historical example that would illustrate the CR mechanic at the divisional level, but finds my statements and historical evidence somehow personally offensive when I didn't even mention his game in doing so, then where are we intellectually?

Oh, yeah. I have to produce a commercial game before anything I say and the history I provide can actually be considered… or even worthy of some historical evidence from said game designers.

In the end Becks Dark, don't take me seriously if you chose, but if I have to produce another wargame before you will take me seriously--and not what I have provided as evidence, even what is common knowledge among professional game designers--where does that leave any discussion of game design?

Or are such discussions only reserved for the few that have produced a set of game rules? Oops, I should say produced a wargame that 'qualifies'.

A lot of smoke can be thrown up when folks don't want to deal with the issues raised or the evidence provided.

I've listed my thoughts on the Command Radius. Love to hear why you think it isn't right, or if you have any history that supports CRs. And I will take you seriously, even though you haven't produced a wargame that I know of.

>>I've listed my thoughts on the Command Radius. Love to hear why you think it isn't right,

Nobody, to my knowledge, asked you to produce your thoughts on Command Radius. Everybody was asking you to produce your miniatures rules. Since you've been pontificating about miniatures rules for aeons, I don't think it's a terribly unreasonable request.

>> but finds my statements and historical evidence somehow personally offensive

I don't know if anyone is offended by you, but a person who critiques endlessly and repetitively, and seems always to need the last word(s) on everything, and yet who never seems to produce anything solid that can be critiqued by others… Can you not see how such a person would get very annoying?

Cheers,
Terry

Terry wrote:
>>>Nobody, to my knowledge, asked you to produce your thoughts on Command Radius.<<<

Terry:
Did I miss something? Isn't this a thread on Command Radius? I was simply addressing what this thread is about and a few folks seem to have forgotten.

>>>Everybody was asking you to produce your miniatures rules. Since you've been pontificating about miniatures rules for aeons, I don't think it's a terribly unreasonable request.<<<<

Well, first 'everyone' hasn't been calling for my rules. I count four, including you.

Second,I haven't been pontificating about miniature rules for aeons. I have been addressing two things: The CR game mechanic and simulations--or trying to.

And third, it is a terribly unreasonable request because if I have something finished and publishable at this moment--, would I post it for everyone and THEN spend $6,000 USD or more to have it printed up? The only person I know of that has pulled that off is Bill Gray. And I know how much effort he has put into it. If it isn't finished, even more reason not to put it up. Sort of like asking you to give away your car, whether it is running or not, because no one believes you can drive.

Third, no one has explained to me how that has any relation to the thread topic, or my criticisms of the CR game mechanic.

And fourth, if I did post them, ready or not, for what? That Bob or others would actually critique them with history or anything else in mind? I would expect no more than they have offered with the current topic. What possible benefit would I derive?

>>>>but a person who critiques endlessly and repetitively, and seems always to need the last word(s) on everything, and yet who never seems to produce anything solid that can be critiqued by others… Can you not see how such a person would get very annoying?<<<<

Yes, I can. Particularly when I have 'produced' a lot that could be critiqued by others and they've ignored it. They doubt my lineage and such, but instead of dealing with the issue of CRs or what I have posted, simply repeat and repeat a call for a complete set of new rules to critique. All because I don't think a single game mechanic actually represents what the designers say it does---and I was speaking of the rule in general, not a particular rules set at that--

And I'll be glad to give you the last word.

Chaos is defined by its apparent random nature. Complexity may be an element but it is not a requirenment.
Marcus Ulpius Trajanus

My point is that the randomness is only apparent, not real. The laws of the Universe still prevail, even within a chaotic situation.

Forgot to mention that apparent Chaos can also be due to a lack of Situational Awareness.

As in: "If you can keep your head while all around you are losing theirs …" maybe they know something you don't?

;)

The Scotsman wrote:
"…the divisional commander is no where to be seen, nor does he send a message….Never a question about being 'out of command' or whether they should move because the divisional commander wasn't there…"

Scotsman, I can see you're introducing us all to Command Radius' little known twin brother, Spheres of Authority. If you keep it up, every game designer will make it a special point to have CR's in their game and your favorite brainchild, the regulating batttalion, will be confined to the dustbin of war gaming history. But OK, don't say I didn't give you advanced notice.

Jimbo Dollar