"The "Command Radius"" Topic

This thread is flagging.

It'll soon be overtaken by "Why do people hate British Generals"

More effort lads more effort!

Agreed Jeremy,

If it is to have any real value, it should be about "command radius" in games and of the elements of c3 it represents in history.

Mike.

Don,

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

Or maybe that they are just interpreting what they know differently!

Ney at Waterloo:

'Hey! Great! At long last the Allies are retreating; I can see them pulling back, where's the bloody cavalry?"

Wellington at Waterloo:

‘God we are getting hammered over there, I'd better pull back a bit and reform!"

Is the ACW the only era with an abundance of first-hand accounts ?

I would like to see more primary source Napoleonic information posted here relating to either command radius or the regulating battalion. Or at least have an explaination as to why there is such a dearth of primary info on Napoleonics. If someone says it isn't in english, then I'll mention there appears to be many here who are multi-lingual.

I just find it fascinating that the benchmark Napoleonic era seems to have so little primary source material.

Somewhat related to the question of translation, I was surprised during my studies in history/political science how LITTLE had actually been translated into English from major European languages over the last 500 years. That made me question the actual depth of the so-called globalization of the modern world, a doubt which I still hold.

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:

Thanks for the warning. It could also be ESP at work too.

You asked about whether the two Batns of the 108th was formed at Austerlitz. Yes, according to Goetz, it was in column when it pushed out the Russians and then formed line on the far side, only to get smashed in the flank by two sqns of the Hess-Homberg cavalry.

No, the ACW isn't the only ear with battle reports, but they are in English… It is hard to get primary works from the Continent in English. George Naziger has been wonderful in translating different works and there are more available now that Google and others are providing many on line.

A lot of what we knew about the Napoleonic wars was filtered through the British POV since 1815. That is changing. Goetz, for instance, reads Russian, which allowed him to use Russian texts for his Austerlitz book. Bowden just recently translated Davout's journals which include battle reports from his Corps officers. That book, however, is over a hundred dollars…

Having said that, there are still a number of works that provide a lot of primary sources, if only in part.

Bandit wrote:
"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…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…"

Bandit, you are correct. SR said "I'm finished with this thread" on February 23… ;^)

NedZed,

Now the real question, Shane has pledged that he is all through with this thread like 8 times (probably a great exaggeration here but my point is 'multiple times'), will SR come back to beat him out for the award of quitting more times without actually quitting?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Now listen here bandit !! I ONLY said ONCE I was finished with this thread, I take great offence at your accusation!! I always thought you were a pretty decent bloke and have spoken to you via personal emails in the past, now I am not so sure.

Go back and tell me where I said I was done here other than the one time, how dare you!!

I am only writing this here because I was informed you are trying to get a bite, well you succeeded, I have the right to defend myself, now back off mate.

and I stand by my words, I AM finished with this thread.

Shane,

Not sure who informed you I was trying to get a rise out of you but I won't argue, I was intending to give you a bit of a hard time, that said it was meant in a more friendly fashion than received. Regardless, my reference was to somewhere around page 9 or 10 when you said statements similar to "I'm close to done here" or "I already gave up." Reason I took the shot at you is because you get so darn wrapped up and while I have no idea what your actual temperament is like you come across as though you are personally enraged often by benign things.

Anyways, it wasn't meant to be poor just sporting in the hopes you'd relax a bit, may have been the wrong tactic on my part.

Now, on the other hand – the other sister shot at SR was meant with less positive will in mind and I state that openly here simply so that people do not feel I make up convenient motives after the fact.

Cheers,

The Bandit

then bandit, ease off on the baiting and try to be more constructive, the reason I quit the thread was because of sniping such as yours. I am all for serious debate but when there is someone who only uses the thread to "give you a bit of a hard time" or worse then I refuse to continue. There is nothing worse than discussing a debate or argument with someone while another jumps in just to throw hand grenades for no constructive reason other than to have a little fun at your expense.

Yes I can get angry, why shouldn't I when you do these things ? I had no argument with you nor did I think you would lower yourself to that level. It's funny, you say the reason you did it was because :

""Reason I took the shot at you is because you get so darn wrapped up and while I have no idea what your actual temperament is like you come across as though you are personally enraged often by benign things.""

Your are correct, you do not know my temprement, actually I am pretty calm and quiet usually but when I have strong feelings or a passion about a topic I will not hold back. I often get accused of arguing a point and not seeing the other side but funny thing is those saying it also refuse to see my side and often argue just as hard, go figure…

So you like to take shots at other's personalities you dislike but cannot see your own faults? step back and re-read all ""your"" posts on this and the other thread and you will see a pattern…

anyway bandit, I will allow you to have the last word, I will not reply again.

Nah, I see mine ;)

Cheers,

The Bandit

[will SR come back to beat him out for the award of quitting more times without actually quitting?]

…or will that award go to the Scotsman, who felt the need to announce – twice – that he's giving somebody else the last word… but is still talking.

Sam wrote:
[will SR come back to beat him out for the award of quitting more times without actually quitting?]

>>>>…or will that award go to the Scotsman, who felt the need to announce – twice – that he's giving somebody else the last word… but is still talking.<<<<<

Well shoot, how can I give him the last word if he won't post again? I offered. Hey, do you need it?

If a general falls in a forest and no one is around to see it, does he still have a command radius?

Confused?

Which one is Frankenstein?

Is it this "monster thread", or command radius itself?

James Viel,

No one sees it because the general was not in his assigned position with the regulating battalion, thus none of his subordinates knows to take over and all his units randomly halt without orders because the telepathic link to their commander is broken when his command radius shuts down ;)

Cheers,

The Bandit

The Scotsman wrote:
"A lot of what we knew about the Napoleonic wars was filtered through the British POV since 1815. That is changing. Goetz, for instance, reads Russian, which allowed him to use Russian texts for his Austerlitz book. Bowden just recently translated Davout's journals which include battle reports from his Corps officers. That book, however, is over a hundred dollars… "

Thanks for the information. It sounds like it takes more time, energy and money to really build a library and knowledge base about the Napoleonic Wars, in comparison to the ACW. That really is the wonderful thing about the ACW… the abundance of information and the abundance of AAR's. Cornell Univ. and Ohio State Univ. should really get a big pat on the back for putting the O.R. and BnL online. Even here the ACW is a major project and there are many, many works that I just can't afford to spring the dollars for. I've read large swathes of Chandler's, The Campaigns of Napoleon, which is a tremendous work and from what I can gather is the definitive single volume history, but for obvious reasons it can only go so far into the details of individual battles. If you were going to recommend a few books to a miniature war gamer related to Napoleonic "battle", what books would you chose ? What are miniature war gamers opinions on the "must have's" for understanding Napoleonic battle ?

Right, I also forgot to mention, the translating of Davout's journals by Bowden is great to hear. That's exactly the kind of thing that we need more of !

A $100 USD and worth every penny I bet.

So, who will have the last word on this topic?

And, making it to 1,000 posts is in doubt. Shame, really.

I could say something infuriating to someone again, might be good for a page or so but I don't know that its productive.

Cheers,

The Bandit

All I got to ask is what does all this garbage have to do with wargaming? It's nice to know we have all these briliant amateur historical analysts willing to share their invaluable historical insights but what has that to do with wargaming. After all, that's what Hausenfrau von Shinklehabben or whatever his name was, asked about. With regards to wargaming, it seems like we have 800+ useless posts.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Rich

Adelbrecht von Senfschlurken wrote:

"[will SR come back to beat him out for the award of quitting more times without actually quitting?]

…or will that award go to the Scotsman, who felt the need to announce – twice – that he's giving somebody else the last word… but is still talking."

Sam that seems a little hypocritical. You "got off at Albany" but you keep returning and talking, too. ;^)

James Viel,

No one sees it because the general was not in his assigned position with the regulating battalion, thus none of his subordinates knows to take over and all his units randomly halt without orders because the telepathic link to their commander is broken when his command radius shuts down ;)

Cheers,

The Bandit

I think you see what I getting at: If a unit doesn't know it's outside of command radius, why should it halt? Shouldn't it just keep on following its last order?

For example, Hood's Division on the 2nd day of Gettysburg. I was following the descriptions on page 15 of this thread using the maps in the Wikipedia article, link I read the following from the article:

At 4:30 p.m., Hood stood in his stirrups at the front of the Texas Brigade and shouted, "Fix bayonets, my brave Texans! Forward and take those heights!" It is unclear to which heights he was referring. His orders were to cross the Emmitsburg Road and wheel left, moving north with his left flank guiding on the road. This discrepancy became a serious problem when, minutes later on Slyder's Lane, Hood was felled by an artillery shell bursting overhead, severely wounding his left arm and putting him out of action. His division moved ahead to the east, no longer under central control.[13]

So Hood's division is initial facing east. Hood orders the advance directed by the right brigade (Law's). After the division crosses the road, Hood is supposed to order the change of face to the northeast parallel to the road, but about this time he's put out of action. The division from then on seems to be out of control; it just continues to advance east on auto-pilot, resulting in the left wing of the division colliding with the enemy and tearing two regiments off (splitting the left brigade). Law then sends the two regiments on the right of his brigade to the left ragged end of the division (it's not clear if he know by now that he's in command of the division). The division seems then to turn northeast while assaulting Round Top.

How does this work (or how should this work) in rules with CR? You move your division in formation forward. Your opponent's artillery gets a lucky shot and takes out the division commander. on the next game turn, are all the brigades in the division out-of-command and must halt? Does the commander of the first brigade instantly become the new division commander, and assert a command radius to the other brigades? Should you be forced to continue to move the division forward, even though you wanted turn the division to the left and advance in that direction?

[Rich, I hope I sufficiently tied the analysis to wargaming ;)]

[Keep the thread alive!]

[At this rate, "Command Radius" will need its own board!]

Rich wrote:
All I got to ask is what does all this garbage have to do with wargaming? It's nice to know we have all these briliant amateur historical analysts willing to share their invaluable historical insights but what has that to do with wargaming. After all, that's what Hausenfrau von Shinklehabben or whatever his name was, asked about. With regards to wargaming, it seems like we have 800+ useless posts.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Rich:

Actually the original question asked whether the CR mechanic was supported by the historical evidence. I agree that some garbage was thrown around.

So, your question: What does history [brilliant or otherwise] have to do with wargames and the hobby? I would imagine only what the game designers claim it does for their game designs.

Then of course – does an 'ahistorical' basic mechanism necessarily mean that the resulting game play is 'ahistorical'.

For instance.
I gave out a game about the 1815 campaign which had corps sized units, point to point movement and one turn per day.
When played we found the French had to be careful about concentration of force yet masking forces and not permitting the Allies to join up. The Allies on the other hand had to successfully juggle covering the multiple approaches to Brussels yet not getting caught piecemeal.

But – the movement mechanic was cards, a units card came out you could move it, combat card came out there was combat, turn ended when all 3 combats had come out. So random snafus with no historical basis every day.
But it was simple and you did get for example uncertainty of Derlon turning up, and if each bit of the Brits would arrive just in time to hold Quatre Bras.

In this case I reckon the end (a quick simple game giving a feel for the challenges facing the generals in 1815) justified the means; though the means are indefensible historically.
I suppose my get out clause was not writing any designer notes :>

Jeff wrote:
In this case I reckon the end (a quick simple game giving a feel for the challenges facing the generals in 1815) justified the means; though the means are indefensible historically.
I suppose my get out clause was not writing any designer notes :>

Jeff:
Why couldn't you just tell the gamers that? At least they'd know what the mechanic did or did do in relationship to history. There isn't any rule that I know of requiring designers to create historically defensible rules--unless that's what they claim to be doing.

On the other hand, what is actually being done if the mechanic was included to give a 'feel' of the challenges facing the generals? If it is indefensible historically, what prompted the rule?

Where did that 'feel' come from, if not from history? How did you know it was the right 'feel'? Compared to what?

My question is how do players know what they are 'feeling' with the game play if the designer never tells them what is and isn't 'historically defensible' in the game?

Without designer's notes, most players either spend lots of time guessing, or they simply don't bother and get on with the game… if only because it's just a feeling anyway.

I think that is why a number of players create their own games--at least then they know what prompted the rules and what they are supposed to or not supposed to represent historically.

Then again, one gamer's history is another gamer's fantasy.

John N. Holly wrote

"Then again, one gamer's history is another gamer's fantasy."

John:
Well, that is a reasonable conclusion when rules are written for 'feel' and 'flavor' and no one knows what history was involved in the first place. Quick and easy is far more comprehensible, and unfantasy-like.

James Viel,

Yeah, I had posited that notion towards the beginning of this escapade of a thread (that units should continue following previous orders not just stop). At that point in the conversation I was pushing for an explanation as to how this makes sense because it seems weird to me that troops would halt after moving X distance when they still have not achieved the objective their orders refer to.

That said, in games where CR is used in this way, typically there are not orders beyond one turn worth of movement which is frankly a convenient but odd thing to begin with.

Jeff,

"Then of course – does an 'ahistorical' basic mechanism necessarily mean that the resulting game play is 'ahistorical'."

I do think it is possible to have ahistorical mechanics lead to historical game play, but it does seem fundamentally better to me to have historical mechanics

Having played several rules where the mechanics of the game were very ahistorical but the outcome of the battle was historical. Slightly different from what you are saying. My issue with this scenario is that if a player acts in a historically successful way they are not rewarded.

Both lead to players "playing the rules" rather than playing based on their knowledge of history. This is why I dislike the approach. It isn't that it makes for a bad game, it just makes for a poor understanding of history. That is a personal preference that I don't think anyone has disagreed about.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Well, that is a reasonable conclusion when rules are written for 'feel' and 'flavor' and no one knows what history was involved in the first place. Quick and easy is far more comprehensible, and unfantasy-like.

Well, I've been at this hobby for almost 35 years and have not yet met an "accurate", "detailed", "simulation" of any battle in the historical genre--and I've played many, many games. Usually those rules authors making claims as to "historical accuracy" are really making excuses as to why their rules are burdened with junk. Rules written for historical "feel" and "flavor" at least get the "game" aspect of war-games correct.

John wrote:

"…[I] have not yet met an "accurate", "detailed", "simulation" of any battle in the historical genre-… Rules written for historical "feel" and "flavor" at least get the "game" aspect of war-games correct."

You're absolutely right. In my opinion, games that only claim to be "games" that reflect nothing more than what the designer says will make HIM (and possibly others) FEEL GOOD, because it REMINDS them of the historical period IN SOME WAY, are beyond criticism. They are doing what they claim to do, and no more.

As you say, words like "accurate" and "detailed" are subjective opinions. If a designer claims that his game IS accurate or detailed but in an objective way and not just a subjective way, it would seem to put the burden on him to demonstrate how the history is carried out in his game in a way that all others would agree with him.

(Some people have used the term "simulation" as a synonym for "accurate", "detailed" etc. meaning it can be objectively seen that way, but with that usage, in the end their usage was just as subjective as those not using the term. Other people assume the word "simulation" can only mean replicating every detail of the real thing, such as using real bullets and real blood – which would be impossible and undesirable).

Scotsman has pointed out that there is a technical industry that exists that creates simulations. It has its own technical definition of "simulation", its own techniques, its own purposes, measures of validation, etc. that therefore make it a different animal than a "game" and a different animal than "the real thing".

He does NOT say it is "better" than a game or the real thing, or that it is "worse". He merely says that there are techniques that the Simulation industry uses to create historical simulations. Therefore, if wargamers do want to incorporate some history into their games, they might be able to do so in a way that the SIMULATION INDUSTRY would consider "objective" rather than "subjective". Therefore, the Simulation field might offer some different tools that clever wargamers could adapt for wargame design. He does NOT say a wargame must be a total simulation – only that parts of it might be IF the designer/player wanted to use those techniques for those sections.

He did not say he has a totally-historically- accurate-Napoleonic-Simulation sitting on his shelf ready to hand out. He has only said that as a professional in the field he can help describe some of the techniques to others, IF they are interested so THEY might be able to use them IF they want to.

His main point has been that he agrees with John; the "game" designer who doesn't claim to be "historical" can make a fine game, and those who claim to be historical cannot show objectively that they are historically "accurate" – but they also CAN make a fine game.

He has only objected to those who say there can be no other way forward, because they are not aware of, (or deny the possibility of ) the fact that the simulation industry has come up with commonly-shared objective definitions and techniques involving "historical" simulation that MIGHT help those wargamers who are looking for that. He has NOT said that all wargamers SHOULD be looking for that.

At least that is how I have interpreted the Scotsman – in my own subjective opinion!

John wrote:
Well, I've been at this hobby for almost 35 years and have not yet met an "accurate", "detailed", "simulation" of any battle in the historical genre--and I've played many, many games. Usually those rules authors making claims as to "historical accuracy" are really making excuses as to why their rules are burdened with junk. Rules written for historical "feel" and "flavor" at least get the "game" aspect of war-games correct.

John:
I wasn't disagreeing with you, just suggesting why it might be the case. I've been wargaming as long, and I haven't either, for the most part. In fact, I haven't seen a technical, concrete explanation of what 'accurate' or 'simulation' entails when a game has those qualities. Lots of claims for those qualities, but no explanations. I don't know about the excuses, but getting the 'game' aspect correct is all folks can do if all the rest isn't explained or identified in game terms.

Yeah, that's pretty much it, Ned.

A whole lot of professional simulation designers in a whole lot of fields had to come up with a single, concrete meaning for words like 'simulation' and 'accurate'. Not to please a particular customer or as just someone's opinion, but as a shared set of technical definitions and methodologies that helped them build simulations. These professionals create functional, objectively verifiable simulations--that have to work as simulations.

We aren't talking anything complicated or 'too much like a science' for a fun hobby--anymore than areo-dynamics is too scientific for RC airplane models.

Many professional game designers use the very same simulation technology as research simulators. [And no, we aren't talking computer programing here. I have used the same technology in training simulations that have no computers.]

Much of the technology is applicable to wargame design, if it hasn't already been applied to create wargames in other venues.

It could provide some meaning to words like 'accurate' and 'historically accurate' and 'to simulate' or 'modeling', along with a whole lot of other mechanics and techniques.

That is a 'could be', not a 'has to be' statement, before I get labeled again as demanding "Absolutely accurate simulations" or some Perfect Game. Never have believed in, or needed either.

It is pretty obvious that wargame designers haven't been interested in the huge strides made in simulation design since the 1970s. It is just as obvious that they don't have to be. They've designed games that are successful in our hobby. That's okay by me.

But, it does makes me wonder when I see wargame designers continue to claim their designs are historically accurate, simulations that 'recreate' battles, and state their game design presents 'the way it was', why all those terms are relegated to 'opinion' and such when any questions are asked. Or explained away--or just ignored once the claim is made on the rules' cover. Or why 'flavor' and 'a feel' is substituted because we have to keep our games simple and quick--as though somehow simulations can't be either.

When there is so much out there that would provide technical definitions, concrete game relationships between those words and more, why do continue to do that?

Would using such things help create better games? I don't know. It would provide some meaning to what designers claim they are doing already, and something more for gamers to discuss other than opinions. Game design is a technical craft, more than simply opinions or hype.

And just to be very clear. I don't believe wargames 'have to' be accurate, have to simulate anything. I have played wargames for several decades that do neither and enjoy them for what they are.

However, when game designers continue to feel the commercial necessity of promoting their games as 'historical' and 'accurate' in some sense, I have to ask: Why? Which clients are they catering to? The view pushed by many is that gamers don't care.

When designers claim to offer a 'feel' or 'flavor' of *something*, it would be nice to know what that *something* means in a technical game sense rather than just another word for 'my opinion' or one person's fantasy. Or when a gamer likes 'the feel' of a game, he might be able to describe it well enough in concrete game mechanics that he could identify other games that will 'feel' the same.

And that isn't a complaint or an accusation. Just an observation and a speculation of what could be.

And here I was hoping to get the last word.

Yeah, I had posited that notion towards the beginning of this escapade of a thread (that units should continue following previous orders not just stop). At that point in the conversation I was pushing for an explanation as to how this makes sense because it seems weird to me that troops would halt after moving X distance when they still have not achieved the objective their orders refer to.

I agree. Especially if the unit is not aware of the demise of the DC. As a Union officer told his brigade at 2nd Fredericksburg, "keep going until you get the order to stop; and you will never get that order." Or words to that effect. Or there was a Union officer in the charge thru the fog at Spottsylvania (the famous mule shoe salient) who said he hoped their guide knew where they were going, so they wouldn't have to circle the world and come on the Rebels' from the other side.

First of I want Sam to know "Hausenfrau von Shinklehabben" was humor and I meant no disrespect.

TheScotsman:

Actually the original question asked whether the CR mechanic was supported by the historical evidence.

I read the question a bit differently. I read the question as "should we use a CR [gaming] mechanism?" Sam then came up with various historical examples for not using CR. I came back much latter with the question are you using CR as a gaming mechanism in order to slow down instantaneous movement elsewhere on the board (as a corrective gaming mechanism) or are you using CR to reflect some aspect of "real" battle that should be replicated in the rules.

I guess it boils down to are you creating a game or a simulation. This is what I mean by that. To me, the purpose of a simulation is to model as closely as possible the actions of "real" life. The purpose of a game is fun. Here is an example, during the Great Italian Wars of the early 16th-century Italian troops had a real problem facing landsknechts in battle. The closer they got to landsknechts the more they had a tendency to dessert. If I were to try to do a simulation of Italian Wars, I would need to create a model which reflects this hesitancy of Italian troops to face Landsknechts. However, in a game that would be catastrophic. Here I spent months painting Italian troops only to have them run away in the first turn. Not fun. So as a game designers, I modify history in order to have a fun game. Should I modify history so that both antagonists have an equal chance of winning, given the scenario My Italian troops fight the Landsknechts with a chance of winning (even though it maybe a slight chance). It makes the game more fun.

So I go back to my original question: is CR being used as a gaming mechanism or part of a simulation model? As I said, this distinction must be made if you are going to answer the question should CR be dispensed with.

By the way the reason I wrote 800+ was because I knew there were within these posting a number of brilliant comments. Most of them made by you. (Damn, what a kiss-up)

Rich

Rich:

Sam said several things about the CR rules, but this is what I was referring to in the first post:

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

Rich wrote:

"I guess it boils down to are you creating a game or a simulation. This is what I mean by that. To me, the purpose of a simulation is to model as closely as possible the actions of "real" life. The purpose of a game is fun."

Okay, then what do you do with a simulation, successful ones like all the Micro Soft flight simulators? Designed for fun, but they claim to be a simulation. Or even von Riesswitz's Kriegsspiel designed to be serious training simulation, but ends up being entertaining too? [Surprised von R.] It is still played by hobby folk.

My understanding is the purpose of a simulation is to model somethings of reality, very specific goals, rather than 'as closely as possible' everything. There is a point of no return in too much detail for simulations as well as games.
Simulation games are done all the time, with both goals being achieved.

The idea that simulations and games 1. must have conflicting purposes [modeling vs fun], and 2. simulations require lots of detail and complexity while games need simplicity and ease, just isn't true. There is absolutely not requirement for a simulation to be complex or detailed and work, just as games don't have to be simple. A great many military simulations have been turned into games with little or no effort. A few computer game companies make their living with that translation, and the reverse it true.

That doesn't mean that games have to be simulations or vice verse, but the two aren't incompatible at all. That fact doesn't place any restrictions on what players like or want, just a statement of what is possible.

Rich wrote:
"So I go back to my original question: is CR being used as a gaming mechanism or part of a simulation model? As I said, this distinction must be made if you are going to answer the question should CR be dispensed with."

Rich:
As I see it, that question requires answers to several questions:

1. What did the designer want the mechanism to be--just a game mechanic or a representation of something from history/war? "a Flavor" or "a Feel" of history is still representational, if only 'a little.'

2. If it was meant to model some aspect of army operations, what? There have been a lot of rationalizations about what is represented, down to whether it is an abstraction, or designed for effect, or a results-driven rule etc. etc.

3. What history is it representing, abstractly or not? Some events or dynamics in the historical accounts led the designer to what to reproduce it on the table top. What?

4. If the CR rule is going to simulate something, there has to be a 1:1 relationship to *some* part of the history somewhere, even with an abstraction. Not a lot, not every possible detail, just an identifiable something. That is the designer's choice of what and how--but the relationship still has to exist in the end.

If the CR rule is so abstract it has no identifiable relationship to history, how can it possibly model that history? The accounts are practically all we know of history, the Napoleonic wars. If we are going to model Napoleonic warfare, it can only be based on what we have as historical evidence.

That's my take on it. I appreciate the 'brilliance' comment, but I mostly just quoted historical accounts and related what I have learned of simulations myself. Most aren't my ideas. That, and the fact that a number of other folks were saying the same things better.

R. Knapton wrote:
"I came back much latter with the question are you using CR as a gaming mechanism in order to slow down instantaneous movement elsewhere on the board (as a corrective gaming mechanism).. "

I'm not entirely clear on this point. CR's won't necessarily prevent instantaneous mov't on opposite ends of a very long line, if the opposite ends are both within a CR, even if not the same CR. Though I do see CR's preventing instantaneous mov't for units which are outside of a CR whether they be on the right, left or center of the line.

Rich further wrote:
"…or are you using CR to reflect some aspect of "real" battle that should be replicated in the rules."

Yes, to reflect the regulation of the battalion, among other things.

One thing I can say about this thread that I can't say about the apparent "pretender" threads is that with this thread, I know I'll be returning to it for future reference.

PS If I wanted to hear people ramble aimlessly on about the relative merits of hockey and cricket, I'd read the sports pages.

>>>>>PS If I wanted to hear people ramble aimlessly on about the relative merits of hockey and cricket, I'd read the sports pages.<<<<<

You yanks should play world class Cricket, you don't know what a great game you guys are missing out on!!

oopse, I said I would not return here, guess I lied…

I'd be interested to see if they have the endurance to hack it to 1000.

"You yanks should play world class Cricket, you don't know what a great game you guys are missing out on!!"

Playing or watching ?

As a spectator sport American Football takes the cake. I will say of all the soccor leagues, English soccor is the best. They don't sit back and play footsies with each other like the South Americans do.

CR is an okay means of keeping a brigade together and advoid independant actions by battalions. Independant actions by battalions rarely happened because the colonel did not have information to initiate such actions, was a subordinate officer who was directed by a higher strategy (even the briadier counts) who had more information and a lone battalion would quickly get crushed by flank attacks or horsemen. If it works, use it. Its an easy way of replicating the results of the chain of command and some practical conditions that we know existed.

Haha! So do we need a: "Why is it that English games are better than anybody elses." thread?

lol,

You got a winner there Michael, I just dare ya to do it !!

Nah Shane, I`m "bottling it"!

but back on subject if I may…

I`m just wondering just how far we`ve got with this thread. It`s been difficult trying to pin down and all agree upon what "CR" is in game terms, or represents in history – and that is with contributions by commercially successful rule designers who have been using it in their games!

The original question needs looking at again really… its a little like the "Napoleonic rules: what is needed?" thread… we could all go there and bump that one up… its all there – well, it has the potential to be all there!
Perhaps Sam needs to ask himself the same set of questions?

I think that first, one needs to decide what`s important in your game/simulation or whatever, and then go from there. If you are happy with the working of a game rule, in producing a game which fits your criteria for a game, and you are happy with the limitations that the game and its rules have, then fine!
The alternatives that have been presented here have generally been dismissed. Regulating battalions as unimportant details… and this is to a degree understandable because some of the opposition has been from authors/players of higher level games, where the brigade general is not represented; both he and his battlefield role are redundant to their game designs.

Unless he`s gone away and invented something entirely new (that is something which is the result of employing "historical logic", but is not based on the distractions of actual historical practices or examples), it would appear that Sam`s games will still need "CR"!

Only 100 to go in order to reach that magic number of 1000 posts. Keep it up gents.