"The "Command Radius"" Topic

Oh no!!!

CR is sinking down in the topics list!!!!

Anybody doing or not doing CR may as well be doing spaceships from Mars wargaming.

There, I feel better.

Hey, my wife got the Best Martian trophy in the Sky Galleons of Mars game at Cold Wars, and I resent that remark. ;)

On the regulating battalions thread, TheScotsman finds evidence for a CR for battalions:

Marmont makes some interesting observations
…
including an argument for a 'command radius' for Battalions as it limits the size of a battalion:

"To conditions are observed in the numerical composition of a battalion. It should be easy to move, and when deployed, the voice of the commander should be readily heard at both extremities of the line. Observing these limits, the number of companies and the personnel of each company may be increased more or less, at will. " pp. 60-61

TMP link

Regulating battalion in game terms: move marker and then move all other units near marker. Simple. One line of rules, instead of pages.

John wrote:
"Regulating battalion in game terms: move marker and then move all other units near marker. Simple. One line of rules, instead of pages."

You would also need a line or two in the command and control rules to reflect the amount of attention the general officer would use to supervise such movements. Depending on the situation or the maneuver or the timescale of game, he might not be able to attend as well to other matters while this happened. He might not be as aware of enemy threats or movements or able to react in time.

Well, if the player is the general, then it'd be his time and attention, right?

Not necessarily, John… it is another way of preventing "instant recognition" by the little lead generals on the tabletop so that you as the "Two-hundred-feet" player won't have the ability to instantly react on behalf of the little lead general.

It was a jocularity.

Right – I missed the smiley at the end…

Test

picture

Actually, we shouldn't be talking about "100 foot tall" generals.

If the ground scale is 1 inch = = 25 yards (or meters), then the ground scale is ~ 25mm to 25m or 25mm to 25,000mm or
1 : 1000.

If the 15mm figure is 6 foot to the top of the headgear, then 18mm (scale) = = 6 foot(real)=25.4mm/inchx12in/ftx6ft=
18mm(scale) = = 1829mm (real) or about
1 : 100

so the figures are 10X the scale of the ground distance, so our lead figure generals are 6' x 10= 60 foot tall already.

We should be talking about "thousand foot tall" generals, when we are talking about game figures instantly seeing things far away from them.

Just my daily contribution towards 1000 posts.

If you look into the historical details, you'll find that English generals always stand head and shoulders above all other nations's, which is why everyone hates them.

English generals always stand head and shoulders above all other nations's …

So, they'd be what? …150 foot generals?

If the scale is 1:100, then a 6' tall player is a 600' tall general!

Sorry for the delay. Life kept getting in the way. I looked at the posting which came after your posting and saw I wasn't disturbing anything.

I went to wiktionary for these definition:

GAME as: "A pursuit or activity with rules performed either alone or with others, for the purpose of entertainment." Wargaming would therefore be a game using a flat surface and miniature soldiers.

SIMULATION as: Something which [imitates] a system or environment in order to predict actual behavior. If a simulation imitates a system it must by definition be a system. Therefore it keeps the components of the system within a database of some kind.

REPLICATION as: Process by which an object, person, place or idea may be copied mimicked or reproduced. This means something is made to be similar to something else.

These answers are not THE definitions but they are definitions relative to what we wish to discuss: the hobby of wargaming. I think that many wargame designers use the term ‘simulation' when they actually mean ‘replication'.

First, I have already answered those questions, quoting from professional game and simulation designers, but they obviously got buried in the thousand posts.

But much of that lies outside the periphery of the hobby of wargaming, which is what we are discussing. My next challenge is to remember what we were discussing.

Rich

donlowry 20 Mar 2009 11:57 a.m. PST
If the scale is 1:100, then a 6' tall player is a 600' tall genral!

I meant relative to the ground scale on the tabletop.

Notice that if 25mm (tabletop) represents 25 meters (battlefield) then 2mm figures are starting to get close to "real size" on the tabletop. But I have trouble painting the buttons on those little guys, so will stick to 15mm figures.

But I have trouble painting the buttons on those little guys, …

Surely you could use a magnifying glass!

Rich wrote:
GAME as: "A pursuit or activity with rules performed either alone or with others, for the purpose of entertainment." Wargaming would therefore be a game using a flat surface and miniature soldiers.

SIMULATION as: Something which [imitates] a system or environment in order to predict actual behavior. If a simulation imitates a system it must by definition be a system. Therefore it keeps the components of the system within a database of some kind.

REPLICATION as: Process by which an object, person, place or idea may be copied mimicked or reproduced. This means something is made to be similar to something else.

These answers are not THE definitions but they are definitions relative to what we wish to discuss: the hobby of wargaming. I think that many wargame designers use the term ‘simulation' when they actually mean ‘replication'.

Rich:
I am not sure why the definitions and work of professional game and simulation designers would "lie outside the periphery of the hobby of wargaming" when they are designing games for entertainment. And also remember that the term 'wargames' was the creation of military men for other than 'entertaining' purposes. In fact, many dictionaries will give simulation as the definition of wargame and vice versa.

But lets' deal with the definitions you've given, assuming that whatever we are doing is for the sake of entertainment.

So if a game is a "A pursuit or activity with rules performed either alone or with others", then it could be done with "Something which [imitates] a system or environment, right?"

[The statement of simulation purpose "in order to predict future behavior" is very narrow when it comes to why simulations are created. It certainly is A reason that simulations are designed, but not the only one by a long shot. Whoever Wikied this definition doesn't know the industry or simulation design.]

So, if a game is using a system which imitates an environment, it could, and probably would, include replication, "Processes by which an object, person, place or idea is mimicked, right?"

Your last question was "My next challenge is to remember what we were discussing."

The two issues that led to the current discussion were whether wargames could be simulations, and then how that might be accomplished. I would think that by your definitions, the answer to the first question is yes, a wargame could be a simulation and be designed for entertainment.

We could start another thread!

Your wish is my command:

TMP link

Rich

I do not understand any of this. Is there a prize for being the one thousandth post?

Yes there is. I have some badly miscast dragoons that I got taken for on evil-Bay. What I thought was some uniform/weapon/pack detail that didn't make sense in the lead turned out to be a big attached piece of sprue. The are ugly and will be out in the first post to the 1000th poster.

You guys are not disappointing me. To 1000 and beyond!!!!!!!!!!

It's melting! melting!!

Say it ain't so …. only 26 more posts to go.

We shall suppose an Army, whose front Line consists of twenty-four Battalions, that these are divided into eight Brigades, each consisting of three Battalions; into four Divisions, each consisting of six Battalions; and into two Wings, each consisting of twelve Battalions; a regulating Battalion is named, near which the Commander of the line generally posts himself; all the other Commanders are with their respective Divisions.

If it is wished, as pointed out in the three first Manœuvres, to form several close Columns of parts of the same Line (see Section 190 of his Majesty's Regulations), the Aids de Camp and detached officers shoot along the Line with the Chief's orders to this effect; so that the movement is perfectly understood before it begins. This being done, the Commandant of the Regulating Battalion, by orders from the Chief, loudly announces on what Company or Division each Battalion Column is to form; the Battalions along the Line instantly repeat the order, and the Brigadiers again loudly announce it, if not immediately taken up by those under their respective commands. Each Commandant of a Battalion faces and forms his Divisions on the named one, and the whole Line is thrown into twenty-four Battalion Columns.
…
the Brigadiers and superior Officers acting as repeaters and explainers: therefore, whether it is a Brigade or a Line, the orders issued by the Chief of either, as well as the mode of execution, would be the same; and in the same way would the whole again extend into Line. The distance between the different Columns would prevent the orders communicated to the one, being heard by the others, but detached officers carry the general instruction, and the instant the commanders of them see the Division where the Chief is, or those between him and them, face and move, they also face and move their respective Corps.
…
The Regulations wisely observe, the larger the body, the fewer and more simple ought to be the Manœuvres required of it. If, therefore, Battalions were much habituated to act together in Line, most evolutions required of them might be executed without the necessity of any previous communication through detached officers. But it would not be wise in battle to trust to this, where the fire of cannon and other circumstances would interfere; on the contrary, the Regulations direct, that when any complicated or combined movement is to be made, which requires previous explanation, it must be communicated clearly to the Commanders of Corps by detached Officers, before it can be ordered to commence. A Line of twenty-four Battalions, with their artillery, would occupy near two miles; the Chief can scarcely be at either extremity, consequently, detached Officers, if well mounted, would, at full gallop, carry his instructions, in five or six minutes, to any point of this Line; even this delay, however, threatens destruction in critical situations. In proportion, therefore, to the extent of the line, must the latitude of acting, in cases of emergency, be extended to the superior officers.—From the above, it will appear of what infinite importance it is that Commandants of Battalions would not only rapidly repeat the general instruction, but that they would also loudly announce it. No interior arrangement of their own Battalion ought, for a moment, to interfere in this great point. If Cavalry form a part of the Line, they move in unison with the Infantry. The Commander of the second Line, after every movement, places it in the same relative position, with regard to the first Line, that it had before the movement commenced.

The tactic of the British army reduced to detail: with reflections on the science and principles of war, second edition By James Cuninghame (1804)
link

So, we have a Line of two Corps plus artillery (almost two miles long) with only a 5 or 6 minute delay to send the orders.

James V.:

Good stuff. It makes it very plain the process by which an army moves on the battlefield, and the time involved. It also makes it clear that no one moves until everyone understands what is going to be done, particularly if there are any complicated moves involved.

It shows how structured the movement is, and how easily such a process can be 'messed up' in communicating it, or by enemy reactions that don't fit the plan…

So, we have a Line of two Corps plus artillery (almost two miles long) with only a 5 or 6 minute delay to send the orders.

A few things to point out though.

This is for an army, which is not in contact with the enemy.

This is for an army, where the position of all units is known and all are in compatable formation.

This is for an army, where no one is engaged in another mission which has to be stopped or completed.

This is for an army which is sitting there awaiting instruction, probably on almost parade ground like territory.

This is a textbook instruction as to what the theoretical expectations are. Sort of like, "every musket must be inspected and in perfect working order".

However having said all that it is very interesting that it is an expectation and method of control and even if 3/4 of it was routinely achieved in practice it supports that regulating battalions could be used (at least sometimes or often?) to extend the distance over which command control could be exercised. Also notice that it greatly strenghtens the concept that independently acting battalions, (a.k.a. zippy battalions), where not often seen. Imagine the future of a colonel, commander of the 3rd in a line of 18 battalions, who decides to get outside of shouting distance.

1986Billsfan wrote:
This is a textbook instruction as to what the theoretical expectations are. Sort of like, "every musket must be inspected and in perfect working order".

However having said all that it is very interesting that it is an expectation and method of control and even if 3/4 of it was routinely achieved in practice it supports that regulating battalions could be used (at least sometimes or often?) to extend the distance over which command control could be exercised. Also notice that it greatly strengthens the concept that independently acting battalions, (a.k.a. zippy battalions), where not often seen. Imagine the future of a colonel, commander of the 3rd in a line of 18 battalions, who decides to get outside of shouting distance.

Billsfan:
Yes, it is textbook instruction because it is a military textbook….;-j

It is a description of how things are done, and when to do them. We can speculate on how often it was done, and I am sure short cuts were taken, but it is far better to see IF such instruction was following in the descriptions of battle. I find it confirming that much of the process is followed by Longstreet's I Corps at Gettysburg on the second day.

And yes, it does provide a description of a rather rigid and 'locked-in' organization, where individual battalions weren't free to zip about, but that isn't surprising if one wants a method for moving 18 battalions all together…

…there's hope!

How is it that people think training is completely disregarded when the battle begins. Battalions and regiments and squadrons maintained their lines, they dressed their lines, we accept that, is there really any different between accepting that and accepting that a corps dressed off a given battalion? Both things did happen during combat. Read The Last Full Measure regarding the life and death of the 1st Minnesota Volunteers. I read the chapter on Antietam recently and the descriptions by the officers and men of the 1st MN do support that these regulations and doctrines were used *during* combat.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Nice, can you quote/post something from that please Bandit either here, or on the regulating thread?
Mike.

How is it that people think training is completely disregarded when the battle begins.

Completely disregarded? I don't think anyone is quite making that argument. I would suggest that in the heat of battle often parade ground drill, etc., broke down, or might have been abandoned from time to time for expediency's sake. [I'm reminded of a passage I read--oh so many years ago--that stuck in my memory of a British officer in the Peninsular War trying to maneuver a battalion. Out of frustration of not getting the battalion to move as he wanted, he simply gave the order for everyone to run over to the tree to which he pointed in the distance and line up to the right of it. They did so at the double.]

Some times exact drill book maneuvers are followed, sometimes not. Sometimes officers and their men improvise. Sometimes not. Under the pressure of battle, I can imagine that parade ground drill often gives way, but I guess much depends on the condition of the unit, its training and experience.

John H:

I think it is true that in battle, officers will get things done anyway they can. However, unlike the parade drill today, the drill on the parade ground was the very same methods they used in battle. Failure to get a battalion to operate adequately can lead to creative thinking. [It reminds me of an account of the Legion du Nord in 1806, where the French officer, stuck with German deserters that didn't know French drill, opted for a creative skirmishing solution…]

So, the exactness of the parade ground certainly would evaporate under fire, but the basic methods practiced to form line, column, square, maneuver and fight wouldn't, couldn't, or nothing would happen other than 'run to that tree… or just run!"

There's that semi-famous case of Abe Lincoln, when he was a captain of volunteers during the Blackhawk War. He couldn't think of the proper orders to get his company thru a narrow opening in a fence, so he just told the men to fall out here and fall in on the other side of the fence! :]

TMP Radar Alert:

"Silly Rabbit" is now the "New Guy".

Perhaps she did us all the favor and graduated.

Nicly picked up Bottom Dollar!
Thanks for the alert.
Max

Looks like we're not making it to 1,000

Gee, silly rabitt wasn't a gal after all? Somebody just trying to flatter people, push out some military sounding gossip, and see how big a fool he/she could make of some people. I'm reminded of being in college and having 2nd year psycology students always tell people "why you said that". Of course.

Trix are for kids, maybe Silly Rabbit went back to playing with them.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Who is (was) Silly Rabbit?

For informational purposes:

Silly Rabbit, SFC Danson, has recently transferred to DC to be closer to her husband who was injured in Afghanistan a couple of weeks ago.

SFC Hixon has taken her place in the unit.

The thread lives!

So, what's your objective here, SFC Hixon?

To pound on your chest and tell us you know military history better than us b/c you've got combat experience?

BD,

As much as I personally do not like multiple persons using a single account in any way, shape or form I think you might have over stepped your mark a little…

Remember, this person, Hixon, is probably a totally different person with a totally different personality who, I think would be offended at your question.

However, this person might just be the very same person trying to put us all off by lying. I hope not, but benefit of the doubt is needed first before accusing someone of an attitude or acting a certain way before they actually do.

I also think that if the above statement is true, then sfc Danson should be shown some respect for her situation. Remember, these guys are fighting and dying while we play armchair general in the relative safety of our private home computers.

Believe me, I am not trying to provoke a fight but her situation needs to be understood and respected if true and aiming another salvo at the new person (Hixon) was unwarranted or called for.

Shane

Shane,

I think SFC Hixon is tough enough to take a question or two. Second, this isn't the Iraq/Afghanistan combat veterans forum. Third, I'm sorry SFC Danson a.k.a."Silly Rabbit's" husband got hurt/wounded serving the United States Armed Forces over there, but maybe she should've had that possibility in mind before she started boasting about her combat experience to question people's motives and understanding of military history here.

Jim

It's also a valid question. What's the objective a rotating, hydra-headed monitoring station w/ instructions to intervene at leisure? Why not just sign up individually?

What's the objective a rotating, hydra-headed monitoring station w/ instructions to intervene at leisure?

You might want to make that 'intervene with leisure'!

Its still beyond me that anything said on TMP could be of note to the training of the US Army. Sticking an uninvited oar into a leisure orientated web site on the basis of some alleged monitoring of game structures and then filling it with personal opinion remains highly questionable.

Here's a guess as to the objective:

Officer Training.

I don't mind the oars, just as long as they're pulling the same boat.

"Every new emperor after him was honoured by the Senate with the prayer felicior Augusto, melior Traiano, meaning "may he be luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan"."--wikipedia

Very cool.

One thousand.