"The "Command Radius"" Topic

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

Trajanus, tell us more!"

Regulating battalions were one of the foundations of "grandes manoeuvres" or what you might call Grand Tactical Movements, or what were known in the Regulation Drill books as movements of "The Line". Brigade and divisional Generals actually had a job on the battlefield apart from issuing orders or adding +1 to some unit's morale factor.
When moving their grand bodies of troops they had certain places to stay on the field near their "regulating battalions." By telling the regulating battalion what to do, which was copied by the other troops in the same line of units, the general could move the whole as one piece. This is a set of maneuvers that is not well known by quite a few wargamers. These movements are in a sense the tactical formation changes etc of battalions writ large.
Snorbens (and other VLB visitors who may not have stayed with the site through its whole existence) ) may not be aware of it because he bowed out of the VLB site when rules weren't produced and discussion veered off into drill.
However, much of that drill discussion (long and boring though it may have been) was actually about things like regulating battalions. I had been writing about the "job descriptions" generals had on the field, and Art Pendragon wrote about regulating battalions. Next we were looking at the drill books past the battalion drill sections, and looking at the sections of "The Line". (Actually George Jeffrey had mentioned regulating movements in his Tac and Grand Tac book I edited years ago, but we hadn't really noticed- and his VLB rules had appendices with timings for "Grand Tactical movements!). So with Art's push, we started to find drill rules and mentions in other books and memoirs about the topic. (So no rules came out, but some very useful research and knowledge about grandes manoeuvres did emerge). In any case, command and control can be exercised in some aspects by generals , using regulating bns.
(This might have been better in the "How Important is it to you to show the different formations?" thread, but "regulating battalions" were mentioned here first.)
Trajanus has taken the regulating battalion idea and applied it in some of his rules, so he can tell you more about it when he sees this thread again.

The question is really why the command radius game mechanic was created in the first place.

The first command radius rules were seen in Avalon Hill board games of the late 60s and early 70s. It was a response to a specific problem:

brigades, divisions and corps in games like D-Day and Gettysburg wondered all over the place, rather than keep historical frontages. Sooo, rules were created to enforce historical frontages.

Table top games picked up this idea, particularly Napoleonic games. To keep realistic frontages, a command radius was applied. It originally had nothing to do with command, per se.

Then other designers began justifying the radius as representing:

1. A commander's skill
2. The range of pre-radio communication
3. Staff abilities
4. Standard Operating Procedure [Armies, up to modern armies have designated frontages for units, from a squad to a corps and army.

Then penalties were laid on 'out of command' units, even though 'command' didn't have much to do with the original rules.

The real problem with these rules are:
1. They failed to explain why armies had SOPs for frontages.
2. They did not capture why commanders kept those frontages or why they decided not to keep them.
3. They forced players to act in one particular manner without any of the benefits or disadvantages of keeping a particular front.
4. They were used to represent things they were never initially meant to represent-- that is, command ability.

The fundamental flaw of command radius rules is that they are 'straightjacket' rules. They force players to act in a prescribed fashion simply because it looks right, not for any of the original reasons commanders worked with, in any eras.

These kind of rules are often called 'results' rules. The how's and why's don't matter as long as the result is seen on the table or game board. While results or black box rules can work just fine, this is not an example of them.

Radius rules are simply design methods to make the player act right--within particular historical parameters, rather than presenting him with the actual problems presented by a historical situation.

To answer, what have I played: another ruleset using Command Radius is Command Decision. I have more experience with this set than Frank Chadwick's other excellent set using Radius, Volley & Bayonet. V&B allows very large battles to be refought & finished in a moderate amount of time. CD is much smaller scaled (platoon per stand rather than a brigade per stand).

All too willing to rewrite or at least tinker with rulesets in the past, I currently prefer to find rulesets that cover all the bases… and yet finishable. Both V&B and CD do that well for me. And if there's a critical mass of players who also play these systems, great!

As others have said, the radii can be a way of simply accomplishing overall ends. Okay with me since these games' overall result corresponds with real world accounts.

Compared to the well-balanced, elegant designs of CD & V&B, how many times have we suffered with (our own?! or) other rulesets that built in too much "realism" (sexy but command level irrelevant minutiae) to either finish the game enjoyably or the results were sped up insanely? E.G. Tractics' 50 smoking tanks in 90 game seconds that took 3 hours to ajudicate?

I can see the point that C3 may be more relevant than picking shell types (!) but the question is how to make it playable and desirable?

TheScotsman,

You are probably correct, command radii is not used as it once was. However, all things evolve and this topic is just part of that evolution. Rules designers are trying every way they can to restrict players from sinply doing anything and everything they think they can or wish to do on the table top.

Command radii is one way to prevent or curtail this in a small way. some designers go way overboard and yes, put in place strange radii of various sizes thinking this would show the ability or inability of commanders in the best way. However, for me, it is a question of time vs motion = distance that comes into play and I do not think order relay from one nation let alone one commander from the next would be any different given most if not all despatch riders ride horses and pretty much travel the same distance on horseback.

It is in the time delay of actually deciding on a decision and then writing it that one must base their ability to give orders on, not some command radius that is one measurment for one commander and twice as far for the next. That does not make any sense to me whatsoever. But, you still need an arbitory radius as I said before to take into account time and motion. It should be the same for every commander but the rolls for activation be the difference based on ability levels, not how far he can command…

Command radii is another facet of wear gaming that takes into account command control in a certain way, whether it is right or wrong depends on your perception. Would real commander think so? I would dare say yes, I am sure a General of a formation would want to keep a tight rein on his units so they do not stray. If thinking this way he would probably make sure those units were no further away than he felt comfortable with. So a command radii is fairly easy and simple way to show this. He would want them all in easy reach when the you know what begins to hit the fan…

Simply put, if we divide our war games into turns and assign movement rates then why not for order relay as well? a message on a piece of note paper in a satchel of a despatch rider can only go to its destination at a maximum speed equal to that of the horse and the skill of the rider. I am not about to explore that avenue so an arbitory set radii will do for me which only measures time and motion. The ability to activate an order I leave to the activation rolls of the comander once he receives that order.

Shane

I`m just returning to the original questions posed by Monsieur St.Mango.

"…could we dispense with the concept of a "command radius" altogether. Is there really a compelling reason for it?"

OK, yes, we could dispense with it and why not?

No, there seems to be no real compelling reason for it because it is an "effect" rule, which may be substituted with another effect rule, or even something less abstract, more representational in method if you want to!

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

OK then, why not try it!
But is everybody aware of, and able to react to, events anywhere on "The Table."?

Considering your point about flank marches:
If the table is big and the figures are small then c3 is not a issue, whereas if you have a small table and big figures then you and your lead generals will have problems!
Yes, the game table is a convention… but why then should "off-table" mean "out-of-command [and control]" if these commands are following orders and their generals are with them?

Being anti-radii, and in support of Trajanus and Ned… I too have rules for regulating battalions!

Command radius has two functions. It limits the ability of the CinC and it limits the ability to divide units all over the place. I dont know exactly how Wellington commanded at Waterloo (it was mostly a defensive battle on his part) but even he didnt divide the brunswick infantry all over the battlefield. So i think, we still need the rule for unit integrity.

But the command of the CinC? I would like to discuss a already not mentioned command rule that uses no command range – the command chit. Like it was used in the old Space Marine game by GW. At the start of the turn you give every unit a command chit face down. I think there was "Attack" (move to attack), "Fire" (fire more intense and early, so you can stop attacks) and "March" (go longer distances). You get some things command ranges dont get in a simple way – time (you have to give orders before they are executed) and uncertainty about the enemy (you dont know, what commands he will give).

Is that a command system without ranges you like?

That "mode" mechanic is an old one. WRG used that.
Not a bad idea.
It is often combined with a command radius.
The unit has an order/mode.
If it goes out of command then it keeps on going.
Often also combined with the possibility of orders being mixed up and the unit goes onto the wrong orders.
Thus introducing friction.
Sometimes some of the modes are stuff like stop confused or take cover.

Mode plus radius for changing it models stuff like Prince Rupert's boys disappearing over the horizon after the baggage pretty well.

Or ww2 early soviet armour where all the tanks in a company followed the CO in a line. No radios and poor training plus poor SOP.

I guess it might be interesting to apply these chits to individual actions of detached units who are engaged, and where control (the general`s and therefore the player`s control) may tend to break down, but it seems rather too random for large commands (divisions or corps) to have to conform to.

The mechanic I've seen in some of the horse and musket games I've played doesn't so much penalize the out of command radius unit for firing or moving, but requires the player to expend more command pips type of thing to get the unit to do something.

This makes perfect sense to me with respect to the distance orders must travel, does it not? That a formation's units are going to be more responsive to the formation commander's will the closer they are together seems intuitive to me.

The WWII game I play, where a stand is a squad, does not allow a squad to move unless it is within LOS of its platoon commander. Outside of the platoon commander's LOS, it can't move on its own (usually) but can still fire to its heart's content with no restriction or penalties. This is a variation of command radius and actually is quite intuitive to this former platoon commander…

As always, Sam brings up some very discussable points that generate excellent points of view from all sides.
--
Tim

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

I think this may have come up before but it's always worth repeating.

Throughout the Horse and Musket period where infantry and cavalry operated by Brigade (the principal also applies to artillery) the manner of maneuver undertaken to get the battalions/squadrons within a Brigade to co-ordinate their actions was to have one of them designated as, the Regulating Unit.

This unit was made known in orders of the day and the commanders of each of the other units in the Brigade were required to synchronize the movement direction, speed, formation and position of their units with the Regulating one.

The commander if the Regulating Unit, under the direction of the Brigade commander, would pick out a point to march on, line up his colour party with it and go. Every one else kept station with this unit, speeding up and slowing down as required to keep alignment.

That way the Brigade Commander just had one unit to concentrate on, the Colonels and their Adjutants did the rest.

The Brigade Commander effectively steered the Brigade via the Regulating Unit. He could change which one the Regulating Unit was if he needed to, there being a code of drum and flag signals agreed to let everyone know if he did.

Relevance to Command Radius is that this is a way of stopping units wandering off that does not need measurement only responsible players.

If you have a rule set that requires an activation roll for movement, an addition or subtraction to their chance to move soon gets people thinking about tight formations and sticking to the mission!

In addition, orders or changes thereof flow from Division to the Brigade Commander and then to the Regulating Unit. So unless the Brigade is required to break down completely into its component parts, even detaching a Battalion is not a problem as the rest carry on as before.

It speeds up transmission of orders as only one unit has to be told what to do directly the rest play 'Simon Says'

Use of this depends on the level of rules you play to some degree.

In Sam's Grande Armee, for example, you would not see this happening inside a Brigade, as that is represented by one stand. However, the principal did apply upwards, so unless given individual missions, the three Brigades in a Division would move under the same principals.

It also worked at a lower level. One company or Squadron would always be nominated as the Regulating Unit to keep Battalions and Cavalry Regiments in formation and a gun or gun section would provide the same function for an individual artillery battery

As long as the command is graduated then it is okay to have a command distance. Obviously, distance makes command control more difficult. Ignoring distance is a mistake and the most critical part is visual distance. It is really just an abstract to refer to it as a radius

Spending pips is often just a randomly based, abstract "game mechanic" (fancy name for a rule!) and the "pips" used aren`t representing anything much at all really!
What if; the orders have already been given to do something and have already been transmitted and complied with, or the if the necessary orders to do such a thing on a flank can be given by an army "wing" commander?
So why roll to see if it happens in a DBA-esquelike pip-based system; its unnecessary! You will save on time die rolling and the "eeer-um" time in agonizing where exactly to allocate the pips, which I doubt is representative of the decisions of any historical general!

"Ignoring distance is a mistake and the most critical part is visual distance."

Very True, which is one reason why Command Radius is wrong, its always given as a constant and in the real world visual distance changes. Trees and lumps of the world get in the way. As does lots of smoke!

The Scotsman

Excellent summary.

Your list highlights the problem. Command Radius is a blunt instrument trying to hit some, or all, of those complicated points and often with no explanation as to why they were important, or how it is supposed to represent them.

Shane: "Simply put, if we divide our war games into turns and assign movement rates then why not for order relay as well?"

A fair point, although if the turn doesn't represent any fixed length of time, then we could just as easily say that it represents some sort of decision cycle, in which time the orders can be sent and received. I think about a typical 1:50 scale Napoleonics game, for instance, in which there is usually a corps or two on each side, and the board represents perhaps 2 miles of front. How long would it take a general to send a courier two miles?? Okay, obviously that might depend on the weather, the terrain, etc… but a man on a horse could surely get from one end of the table to the other in 15 minutes or less, which is surely acceptable as an approximate turn length for that unit-scale.

In other words, I'm starting to realize that the game table "scales" itself automatically. As we increase the unit-scale, we tend naturally to increase the time-scale, as well. Thus when we play a grand-tactical game and have all of Waterloo in front of us… We're also talking, usually, about a "turn" that represents at least half an hour. Once again, more than enough time for a mounted courier to ride from one end to the other.

Decebalus: " I dont know exactly how Wellington commanded at Waterloo (it was mostly a defensive battle on his part) but even he didnt divide the brunswick infantry all over the battlefield. So i think, we still need the rule for unit integrity."

Actually, what got me started on this thread was a closer reading of the Union deployments at Gettysburg, and realizing, Holy Frack, they're scattered all over the place! Regiments are peeled off of brigades and sent miles away, ultimately under some other brigadier's command. Brigades are peeled away from divisions and scattered here and there, artillery is taken from the higher echelons they're supposed to be attached to, the divisions of a corps are divided and sent to all points of the compass…. And yet it didn't seem to hurt anybody's performance in the battle.

At least I've never yet read anything that said, "Caldwell's division of Hancock's Corps was sent to the far Left to reinforce Sickles, but at the last minute Zook's brigade was peeled off for a different mission under yet a different commander… All of this happened very slowly and was poorly-coordinated because they were all so distant from their corps commander, Hancock…" (Indeed, those guys hauled-ass and were very well-coordinated, in sharp contrast to the Confederates attacking them, who were certainly "within the radius" of their corps commander, Longstreet.)

I mentioned Wellington because I recall him splitting his reserve cavalry and sending it all over creation, which is just about impossible in most games at the grand-tactical scale, as would be Napoleon's use of his Imperial Guard at the same battle, peeling it off by regiments and even individual battalions, and sending it to three different places.

I can see how doing that would be a nightmare on the line of march, *getting to* the battlefield… But once the army is drawn up for battle, I'm increasingly realizing, historical commanders often "broke the rules" of unit integrity quite liberally.

We based command radius for Guard du Corps on the distance that a messenger could travel in one turn as direct control and capable of issuing 'follow me' orders.

Other command radiuses are based on location of the command/staff marker. If the General is located too close to the enemy, then his focus is on the enemy troops near his position and command distance is reduced.

Visibity for command order purposes can be adjusted by having the general located on a one or two level hill.

In my ww2 adaptation for ww2 the CO potentially provides extra motivation in the form of an extra activation for a squad.
To do this he must make a successful communication roll.
If they're next to him this is automatically sucessful.
For each increment distant it gets harder.
If enemy that the squad are interacting with are out of the commanders sight then it gets harder.
If the squad are out of sight it gets harder ( a runner is assumed ).
If the squad are under he fire it gets harder.

This is a command radius mechanic of sorts.

Sam: "as would be Napoleon's use of his Imperial Guard at the same battle, peeling it off by regiments and even individual battalions, and sending it to three different places."

But isnt that a good example. They were "in" command range in his reserve near him and he ordered them to go away. (Like checking command range before the movcement phase.) He didnt order some troops from Placenoit to come back. (And who commanded the young guard at Placenoit – wasnt that more something like an detachement?)

And isnt that the point. One troops got stuck in you loose control.

[But isnt that a good example. They were "in" command range in his reserve near him and he ordered them to go away. (Like checking command range before the movcement phase.) He didnt order some troops from Placenoit to come back. (And who commanded the young guard at Placenoit – wasnt that more something like an detachement?) And isnt that the point. One troops got stuck in you loose control.]

I suppose, except that in most "command radius" systems, once he'd ordered those troops off to wherever, they would then be penalized because they're no longer within his radius, nor within X" of their superior (the corps commander), nor anywhere near their colleagues in the same corps, etc, etc. etc.

"Actually, what got me started on this thread was a closer reading of the Union deployments at Gettysburg, and realizing, Holy Frack, they're scattered all over the place! Regiments are peeled off of brigades and sent miles away, ultimately under some other brigadier's command."

But isn't that the point? Although units were often detached from one command structure they were ATTACHED to some other command structure, not just left to their own devices, or some tenuous command path back to their original commander?

Correct me if I am wrong …

"This is a command radius mechanic of sorts."

I don't consider that to be a "command radius" mechanic in the way that G St. M originally described it.

There are many examples of battles in which units didn't do what they ought to have done, because the higher commander didn't give them orders and they did not act on their own initiative.

If you get rid of command radius you need some other mechanism to prevent the telepathic, helicopter general effect -- unless you aren't worried about that and just want to play the game, which is a completely valid viewpoint.

Various other C&C mechanisms have been used, such as multiple players per side, written orders, operating modes, card-based activation, and PIPs, all of which are open to objections.

There's a huge difference between attacking and defending. I think a unit in a defensive posture will not require a command distance 'leash' like attacking units would.

[But isn't that the point? Although units were often detached from one command structure they were ATTACHED to some other command structure, not just left to their own devices, or some tenuous command path back to their original commander?]

It's the point exactly: you can't really accomplish that in game terms. Unless you say that any unit must be within the Radius of ANY officer, at some time… Thus symbolizing being attached to *somebody.* In other words, there's no point in specifying any TO&E – specific attachment for anybody.

I'm not saying that's a wrong way to do it, but I doubt many people would like it, and it could be as easily abused as just allowing units to roam as they pleased.

Well, as Yul Brenner said in The King and I; "Is a puzzlement".
On the one hand, I've played in miniature games that put a great deal of emphasis on accurately simulating historical command and control with clever mechanisms that tried to account for late, lost or misunderstood orders and/or the "fog of war". They all tended to share one attribute to one degree or another; they were tedious, contentious, frustrating, slow, boring and generally a drab and awful waste of time. And they certainly did nothing to satisfy my sense of historical military perspective that I think all historical gamers seek to one degree or another.
On the other hand, I've played in miniature games that proudly pronounced themselves above all this command and control nonsense and that embraced the 100 foot commander concept. There is indeed a certain satisfaction derived from standing majestically over a miniature gaming table and, spying an opponent's reinforcements beginning to arrive on the opposite end of the field – in scale several miles across a cluttered and obscured battlefield – bringing your reinforcements in at the same place to counter them deus ex machina. But, despite such games being fast and simple to understand, you soon realize that whatever you are playing, it has very little to do with the military realities of the period. You soon have to admit to yourself that you've actually been playing something closer to a juvenile game of Snakes and Ladders ( with nicer tokens) than an adult simulation with a stimulating and satisfying historical military perspective.
One approach leaves you with a mouth full of bile, the other with a mouth full of ashes. And, in my mind, both equally miss the mark.
This topic has been hashed over in TMP again and again with much the same arguments for and against being ably presented and re-presented. But in reality it is, to me at least, the same old problem that has bedeviled commercial wargame design since its inception; historicity versus playability. How much of one do you sacrifice in favor of the other?
Wherever the ultimate solution lies – the perfect balance of historicity and playability that guarantees maximum competitive enjoyment with maximum historical satisfaction – I'm sure it doesn't lie at the ends of the design spectrum.

Gouvion St Mango said,
"I suppose, except that in most "command radius" systems, once he'd ordered those troops off to wherever, they would then be penalized because they're no longer within his radius, nor within X" of their superior (the corps commander), nor anywhere near their colleagues in the same corps, etc, etc. etc."

That's why you allow for units of the Reserve to be reallocated to different commands as directed by the overall commander. We make exceptions where exceptions make sense.

"I don't consider that to be a "command radius" mechanic in the way that G St. M originally described it."

Let's just check that original post.

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

Yep.

Contrary.

Wow. A very good discussion and a lot of excellent ideas. I've been discouraged as a gamer, when any chance at and advatage or surprise is negated by all opposition units immediately taking corrective action. Here are some ideas I take from the above entrees, (with some embellishment), which might be massaged into a command and control rule set. (I'm not referencing each author above for the idea, but credit them with the idea). In no particular order:

1. The smallest two levels of command (e.g. one stand and what next level unit multiple stands comprise) can react to immediate enemy actions. enemy infantry at 300yards, horse at 500 yards, artillery at some level of casulties suffered. Local inititive. Calvary units can roll as per their leader's rashness rating to immediately attack flank or rear of enemy units.

2. Field officers follow their written orders. Orders are dated and time stamped for time of issue and time of execution.

3. The deployment and activity of "Regulating Battalions" can be followed if this has been ordered.

4. Commanders write "written on piece of paper" orders for lower units in chain of command and send them by courier. These orders are written on paper on a clipboard held by the player. The courier (the stands are numbered)moves at flank speed to each unit needing the order. There may be different number of couriers for different commanders, but higher level commanders can steal couriers from lower level commanders. When the order is received by the field officer, the quality of the unit field officer specifies any delay in turns before the order can be executed. ??100%, 80% and 60%?? for dispatching the order the first turn after it is written?

5. Commanding officers have different abilities in understanding intellegence and making decisions. There is a delay in dispatching the order for different quality officers. ??100%, 80% and 60%?? for execution the first turn?

6. Troops which are "stuck" in a fire-fight, charge, melee, or movement to the rear have a chance of delay in following an order. ??100%, 80% and 60%?? for execution the first turn?

7. If units are "sub-divided/broken down" the sub-unit is lowered in morale by XXXX. It also must be sent orders sepeately. (Ex. If a stand(s) is a battalion, the brigade and division are units which can be affected. If you split off a battalion from a brigade (or a brigade from a division), the split off unit suffers the effect. Exception: the split off unit occupies a fortified-like location.

Comments: using couriers (paint a lot of colourful Hussar figures!)makes planning a part of the game and avoids the telepathic unreality…… Delays in sending and acting on orders, different number of couriers can reflect the ability of the commanders…… Some local inititive is allowed…… More "chrome" might be lost orders, orders delivered to the wrong unit, orders delivered in the wrong sequence and simple left-right errors (your other left Goshdarned It!).

"Let's just check that original post.

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

Ah … my mistake. I missed the line in your post that said:
"For each increment distant it gets harder."

Now that IS a command radius mechanic.

Well, if there is to be no command radius then there is no point in putting commander miniatures on the table. All commanders would, of course, be assumed to be situated in some kitchen several miles behind the battlefield and able to communicate instantly with one another so no need for couriers between themselves.

Now, you might have a system where you have to send aides with messages to every unit before it alters its orders. Of course, you would also have a limited number of couriers/aides available. If you do this then you have an implied command radius where units are penalized for being outside a certain distance from their commander.

I think it would be a mistake to abuse all command radius rules in general. There are alot of variations in their application and some are perfectly suited to their other game mechanics and are elegant solutions to the problem. Others might be counterintuitive restraints to require a battlefield look that the rules cannot encourage immersively.

But likewise, Command Radius should not be a given in any game. There might be a better way to do it for that game.

The rules that I'm working on currently (battalion level) have an inverse command radius. The units are not affected at all by being outside command radius but when a commander tries to lower his personal 'command chaos', the minimum it can be lowered to is increased for each of his units that is more than 12" from him or are removed from the table. By spreading out his command, the commander becomes less effective.

I myself like command radius for individual commands but not forced on the whole army. IE french divison has to stay near general but not near field marshal. plus using couriers ruins the comradie of gaming. people will stop you talking saying that not what the courier communication is. we all like to talk during the game.

What a great topic for discussion!

What are the characteristics of a good command and control system? What do people want to see in a command and control system?

I want a command and control system that…

1. Eliminates the 100 foot general.
I don't want my opponent to be able to react to troop movements that could not otherwise be seen by troops on the field.

2. Somehow/someway rewards unit integrity.
Units should not be able to zip all over the battlefield without some restrictions and/or penalities. Yes, as pointed out, this did happen and the Union response to Longstreet's attack on July 2nd at Gettysburg is an excellent example of this working succesfully.

Yet the Confederate attack on Little Round Top on July 2nd is also an excellent example of the regiments of different brigades becoming mixed up and being unable to coordinate their attacks properly.

Why were the Union more successsful than the Confederates at it at this particular time and place?

Obviously there should be some sort of benefit for maintaining unit integrity. What that is I don't know. Maybe units can only be rallied by commanders in their own chain of command? If you want to you can send units here and there, but you will not be able to maintain any advance.

3. Allows for crazy things to occasionaly happen, like Sickle's advance on July 2nd, Rode's poorly coordinated attack on July 1st, or the Confederates retreating from part of the Sunken Road at Sharpsburg.

These are some things I would like to see in a command and control system. I'll leave it to better minds to figure out how to create the perfect command and control system--and still allow us to finish a large battle in an evening--Now get to work!

"you can't really accomplish that in game terms"

Many (well some) rules have mechanisms to attach subunits to different commands, usually requiring some expenditure of time/effort/command points/mode changes or whatever.

>"Everytime the overall commander desires to send new orders, he must roll higher than the intended commander's value."<

This would not take care of the situations I mentioned in my post, where d'Erlon and Wallace went off in the wrong direction (so far as their respective commanders were concerned). In d'Erlon's case, he received conflicting orders from two different superiors, Ney and Napoleon, and obeyed the wrong one – this could happen in a game IF different players were playing Ney and Napoleon and d'Erlon, but not if 1 player represents all 3.

in Wallace's case he simply took the wrong road. This could happen if Wallace is being played by a different commander that the 1 playing Grant, but NOT if they are both the same player.

MCHimself said: "What if; the orders have already been given to do something and have already been transmitted and complied with, or the if the necessary orders to do such a thing on a flank can be given by an army "wing" commander?
So why roll to see if it happens in a DBA-esquelike pip-based system; its unnecessary! You will save on time die rolling and the "eeer-um" time in agonizing where exactly to allocate the pips, which I doubt is representative of the decisions of any historical general!"

This is a good point. In trying to come up with a C3 system to replace the one in Sam's GA (which I don't like -- sorry, Sam), I was considering Lee's style at Gettysburg. He didn't need/use many "command chits" at all. He gave a few vague orders to his corps commanders and stood back to observe the results -- usually to his horror. But once Lee gave his order to Longstreet, for instance, there was no need for him to keep using "command chits" to "keep charging" (though maybe some to say "hurry up" would have been handy), nor for Longstreet, once he told Hood and McLaws to attack, for him to keep repeating the order.

Meade, on the other hand, was (as Sam points out) breaking up formations and sending pieces of them all over the "table" to plug holes and reverse disasters. He used lots of command chits, and yet he was on the defensive.

My one conclusion from my musings: one size does not fit all.

Good stuff, but all based on 'ensuring' that all units do exactly as directed, or worst case, forces them to do nothing.

But what about the inevitable units that do what they most certainly are NOT supposed to do. The British Cav pursuing off the table, the landwehr that stops to loot a camp, or the battalion that misunderstands and mistakenly attacks an exposed village, never to return.

Does anyone have provision in their rules for this sort of thing? Maybe random movement when out of Command Radius, an additional (unwanted) breakthrough movement after a successful melee or perhaps just a petulant counterattack against a galling artillery battery?

mosby 65 said: "I've played in miniature games that put a great deal of emphasis on accurately simulating historical command and control with clever mechanisms that tried to account for late, lost or misunderstood orders and/or the "fog of war". They all tended to share one attribute to one degree or another; they were tedious, contentious, frustrating, slow, boring and generally a drab and awful waste of time."

That sounds like a very good simulation of military life to me! Or, as I recently read or heard somewhere: Drama is real life with all the boring parts left out or passed over.

The use of command ratio(s) to keep formations together could be changed to a rule that simply says all the sub-units have to stay within X inches of each other, or something like that.

To me, the important thing to "simulate" in C3 is the time it takes to supervise subordinate units and to make decisions. A good commander and staff can accomplish more in a given amount of time than a poor one.

The thing that bothered me about Sam's GA was that the more subordinate units a general has the more command points he gets. To me that is just exactly backwards. The more units he has to supervise the less time he can spend on any one of them.

Someone mentioned subordinates who are out of command radii who did very well on their own. I've often thought that what we need is a rule that says, OK this unit is now on its own so we now bring in player Y to command it and who just happens to be smarter than than you are. (Unfortunately, when we play Lee we seldom have a real Stonewall Jackson we can turn a wing over to!) We can devise rules to hamper a player and keep him from doing what he wants to do, but I can't think of any other way to actually INCREASE his ability. (Roll 1d6 and on a roll of 5 or 6 you get 20 extra points to your IQ?)

Murph,

128th Transylvanian Zouaves, huh? Might have to paint up a battalion or two of those guys!!! ;)

7e Miiitie said: "But what about the inevitable units that do what they most certainly are NOT supposed to do(?)"

That was my whole point about d'Erlon and Lew Wallace. It wasn't that they did nothing, but that the did something other than what their respective commanders wanted. How, in the absence of real live (and obtuse) players representing d'Erlon or Wallace, do you simulate that?

In Marechal de l'Empire, the Tempo points (command points) are allocated to each corps commander, the C-in-C also gets and allowance plus a dice roll.

A good corps commander gets more points than a bad one. Corps commanders can only use their points for their own corps. If you keep the entire corps joined up, you can move it with a lot fewer Tempo points than if you split it up into separate brigades.

The effect is that given some basic orders (a couple of Tempo points) a good corps commander will roll on towards his objective. A bad corps commander needs a lot more bottom kicking from the C-in-C to get him moving.

This seems a reasonable compromise between playability and simulation of the problems of command.

Shane wrote:
You are probably correct, command radii is not used as it once was. However, all things evolve and this topic is just part of that evolution. Rules designers are trying every way they can to restrict players from simply doing anything and everything they think they can or wish to do on the table top.

Shane:
It certainly does that, but do the restrictions have anything to do with what actually kept commanders "from
from simply doing anything and everything they think they can or wish to do?" It is a lesser version of the Antietam "McCLellan" rules, where only one corps is released at a time. That restriction makes the scenario 'look like' the battle, but it has nothing to do with what commanders 'could' and usually would do.

This radius where things are 'in command' or 'out of command' simply doesn't relate to what commanders were considering 'in and out of command' or did on the battlefield. Others have given a number of examples of that.

Shane wrote:
Command radii is one way to prevent or curtail this in a small way. some designers go way overboard and yes, put in place strange radii of various sizes thinking this would show the ability or inability of commanders in the best way. However, for me, it is a question of time vs motion = distance that comes into play and I do not think order relay from one nation let alone one commander from the next would be any different given most if not all dispatch riders ride horses and pretty much travel the same distance on horseback.

Scotsman:
Perhaps. That would have to be determined from the historical record. The whole time vs motion = distance equation was very important to Napoleonic commanders and they spent a lot of time on the issue. Their solutions can work very well with games. Ned has given a perfect example with the regulating unit. No need for command radii if the rules use the same procedure. Fronts will be maintained, and if they aren't, the consequences are far more reasonable.

It isn't enough to restrict a player's options, they have to have some relationship to the restrictions faced by and the same options open to Napoleonic commanders--if that is the purpose of the rules in the first place.

There is no reason they have to be more complicated. The regulating unit rules aren't any more complicated to play, and in some ways simpler, than the 'command radius' rules.

It is not coincidental that less than a day after I posted in the NBs III thread, Sam just had to question command radius. Rather than addressing what I wrote Sam started a new-old topic on command and control, which by coincidence happens to be a pillar of NBs.

In fact, there is room for many interpretations of what occurred on the Napoleonic battlefield, some valid and supportable and some not.

Historical miniatures is a small hobby and will remain so as long as we continue to attack each other and our works, directly or not. For those able, might not the time be better spent in designing a new set of rules rather than wasting interminable hours on non productive discussions which are almost guaranteed to anger half of the readers?

While I expect this from Bob Jones, one would have thought better of Sam, but, alas, he's just a pounder after all.

Good gaming no matter what rules you play.

Bob Coggins

ps: A Story which I posted on the NBs Yahoo site. A friend and an Icon in the hobby who owned his own company and designed board wargames and miniatures rules told me he does not post on Napoleonic sites because they are rife with s. As if to substaniate his belief, it is not for nothing that the Ancients and WWII and all the other era guys look askance at Napeonic miniatures gamers. One need only read the FoG topic, with so many Napoleonic gamers being sooo sophicatedly cynical in the ridicule of a product that they have yet to see or play, to understand how poorly us Napoleonic elitists are thought of.

I do agree with you, regulation is much better than command radii, setting aprameters is very important. However, from my view point, command radii is only a tool for setting a distance (equal to one single turn) where motion x time = distance allowable in that single turn. So I set 300yds for Infantry and 500yds for Cavalry. The reason Infantry is so high is because normal battlefield contact and engagement range was and still is in modern times, 300yds.

I have set parameters and restrictions in my own system for command and control, sometimes I feel I set too many but decided that this had to be done. Everyone knows how players tend to do as they please, when they please on the table top and react suddenly to changing situations that in reality take huge amounts of time to react to. Setting regulations goes a long way to stop this, but setting command radii also helps as well. You do not have to penalize units that are out of command but some restrictions must be placed on them, these can be relaxed if the enemy comes into their reaction zone which I denote, as said earlier as 300yds and 500yds for Cavalry.

But a set of rules must be put in place to limit the amount of freedom units can have so I feel setting parameters and regulations coupled with command zones as I have stated really goes a long way in doing this otherwise people are going to just do as they please, when they please…

Shane

ratisbon said: "might not the time be better spent in designing a new set of rules rather than wasting interminable hours on non productive discussions which are almost guaranteed to anger half of the readers?"

I don't see anything on this thread for anyone to get angry about. I believe Sam IS designing a new set of rules, and perhaps he wanted to think out loud and get some feedback.

I think it is an interesting discussion on a topic of importance to those of us who design and/or modify rules, either for our own use or for publication.

Play on.

The "Regulating Battalion" probably deserves a thread of its own.

In the 1791 reglements (part 4 evolutions of the line of battle) there are a number of examples where a division undertakes a formations change. What is interesting is that the examples select one of the battalions (seems to be the fourth) as the base on which the evolution takes place. I think this is the same concept as the regulating battalion.

See plates 30 (XXX) and 27 (XXVII)

link

Note this flexibility of selecting the base is a development in tactics away from the necessity to always deploy on the head of the column. I also think the intention is to allow flexibility in the choice of the base dependent on the tactical situation which is slightly different from defining the regulating battalion for the day.

In some potted versions of Dundas there are also examples (at battalion level) of performing a change of front having selected one company as the base.

[It is not coincidental that less than a day after I posted in the NBs III thread, Sam just had to question command radius. Rather than addressing what I wrote Sam started a new-old topic on command and control, which by coincidence happens to be a pillar of NBs…. one would have thought better of Sam, but, alas, he's just a pounder after all.]

Bob -

1) I don't follow your every move, nor read your every post. My world does not revolve around you. I wasn't responding to anything you'd written. I was talking about my own ideas and recent readings… Which would be evident, had you read the first half of this thread.

2) Command Radii are "pillars" of both of my games, too, as you'd know if you'd bothered to read the first half of this thread. And they're central to just about every popular rules set, as you'd know if you'd read the first half of this thread, where I laid them out in a long list, and people then talked about them.

3) I have no idea why you seem to think I'm a bug up your . Believe me, if I wanted to pick a fight with you… it would be perfectly clear to all concerned. There would be no "coincidence" about it.

[[ might not the time be better spent in designing a new set of rules rather than wasting interminable hours on non productive discussions which are almost guaranteed to anger half of the readers?]]

Everybody else seems to have really enjoyed the discussion. You may wish to read back over it, and note how many people remarked on how much they were enjoying it. It certainly has given me some food for thought.

If you have something constructive to add, then do so.

Yours,

Sam

Shane wrote:
However, from my view point, command radii is only a tool for setting a distance (equal to one single turn) where motion x time = distance allowable in that single turn.

Shane:
Command radii is certainly just a game mechanic--it is what it presents in the way of environmental options and consequences that is the issue. A turn is simply an arbitrary division of time, which is fine. If that works for you, more power to you.

Shane wrote:
So I set 300yds for Infantry and 500yds for Cavalry. The reason Infantry is so high is because normal battlefield contact and engagement range was and still is in modern times, 300yds.

Scotsman: Come again? What constitutes 'engagement range?' For modern armies it is simply a convention around an estimate of what other environmental factors are going to lead to anyway.

Shane wrote:
I have set parameters and restrictions in my own system for command and control, sometimes I feel I set too many but decided that this had to be done. Everyone knows how players tend to do as they please, when they please on the table top and react suddenly to changing situations that in reality take huge amounts of time to react to. Setting regulations goes a long way to stop this, but setting command radii also helps as well. You do not have to penalize units that are out of command but some restrictions must be placed on them, these can be relaxed if the enemy comes into their reaction zone which I denote, as said earlier as 300yds and 500yds for Cavalry.

Scotsman: While I have little idea how your rules work, I think that generally, the notion of penalizing players for acting ahistorically usually creates poor game rules. It shows a weakness in the game design or the designer's understanding of how a game or simulation operates. It is poor simulation design to create rules to penalize players for doing things that contemporary generals wouldn't without asking why those generals didn't do them--or why they did.

Shane wrote:
But a set of rules must be put in place to limit the amount of freedom units can have so I feel setting parameters and regulations coupled with command zones as I have stated really goes a long way in doing this otherwise people are going to just do as they please, when they please…

Scotsman: Conceptually, I think working to 'limit the amount of freedom' units can have is the wrong approach. What needs to be created are rules that accurately describe what freedom a unit has--period. Creating rules to eliminate what players can things 'wrong' is like herding cats. I can spend hours telling you what you can't do, but the real issue in a game is what you CAN do. Games are players doing things. IF you describe the do's correctly, the don'ts often take care of themselves--just like the regulating unit rule…

Historical wargames, or simulations are meant to capture the action and decisions of history. Because so many games have allowed such unhistorical parameters, it is hard to corral the cats.