"The "Command Radius"" Topic

Shouldn't we close this thread and try to resolve the dichotomies of something easier, like quantum mechanics and classical physics…

Seriously, this one of those threads where even though some people are opposed to your own view, you still think "Good point".

I would say the Union at Gettysburg isn't the greatest example of no Radii: the larger better equipped army defending on a ridge, behind a stone wall in some places, isn't going to be the most difficult to command- What do you say other than "Keep Firing"? (though I now wonder were any men refused fresh ammo because they were fighting with the 'wrong' brigade? QMs have a reputation! "Your supplies are at the Seminary, these are for the brave Vermont boys")

Two things strike me.
1) this needs to be 2 different discussions- pre and post radio.
2) We don't always mean COMMAND radius. That's just what the Rules Writers always call it. Sometimes it is COHERENCY.

The Gouvion's original post posited the 2 companies left in a church yard with the Howitzers as a typical action. No argument that yes it did from me. How ever at some point Schlumpf may decide he needs them. What is going to cause them to rejoin him? Unfortunately (as any fule kno) Schlumpf was one of the finest commanders in 1814, not 1944, and not only does he not have a radio, he is out of sight of the church yard. How do we account for that?

The regulating battalion is an elegant solution for real commanders. On the table you are effectively imposing (guess what) a Command Radius- the battalions have to maintain a certain closeness to be able to see at least one other. This then produces an effect I've seen in modern skirmish rules (including 40k, so, yes that does have a CR effect), where a figure must be within x cm of another in the same unit. (Another way I've seen this done, again at 1:1, is "A model is 'in command' if a) it is with in x inches of the unit commander, or b) with in y inches of any model that is itself 'in command' )

The examples of individual battalions being split up. They were under command at the point the order was given. Did they get orders AFTER they marched into the smoke? It's easy to give orders to the whole unit together at the start of the battle, but finding them an hour later may be interesting!

The +1 incremental on command throws in Warmaster etc for distance represents finding out where the unit is, realising it's available (ie not engaged) and getting someone there AND making the unit leader understand what is required.

One game where I was fighting Washington's traitorous rebels with loyal patriotic Redcoats, my best unit repulsed an attack in the left flank. I was able to march them to the right, where the 'Crisis' (as Keegan would put it) was happening. If my C in C was at the crisis point, he couldn't have known the Veterans had despatched the rebels with such speed, and were in a fit state to march from flank to flank. If he wasn't how, did he know? Yet 'no command radius' allowed him to do that.

This thread has made me realise the subtleties of Spearhead. On the BKC vs SH thread I expressed my frustration that units in BKC relied on being told what to do every turn. They don't need to- this is part of the problems of Command Radius games- but because the company is x cm from the CO on the second turn the I/C becomes less competent. The only ways to counter this is an order system, often avoided because of the paperwork, or to let the units roam freely. Jeffries tried it with the Change of Situation, simulating how long it took for orders to travel up and down the chain, but this involved lots of paper.

( for those who don't know- Simply, a commander could only issue new orders when receiving a report form below, or order from above. Units (Battalions) could issue a report on sighting the enemy, or becoming engaged. The Brigade could issue new orders to react to a threat, and report to Division, and so on.)

Conliffe simplified orders by having each battalion follow an arrow on a map. Each BnHQ does have a 'Command Radius', true, but I contend this isn't a COMMAND radius, but a COHERENCY radius. One thread asks 'What concerns does a Battalion Commander have' and and more than one person comments on he needs to see the battle. The Bn C/O has a plan, and will want to utilise his assets as well as he can- he needs them at the point of pressure to aid HIS plan, not swanning off to aid some other colonel. This radius isn't there because of comms, but rather he needs as many men as close as possible to the pressure point. The player's role is Brigade/Regiment- he has to trust his colonels- much of their actions are forced by the rules (must follow arrow at half speed or more, fire priorities). This stops micromanagement of battalions, and has BnHQ keeping their units coherent. This thread may touch on 'forcing' actions in rules, but should players be allowed to break the doctrine of the army in commanding units too far below their on table presence? Those officer know how to do their job (imagine a Napoleonic battalion not forming square, because the player realises getting them wiped out is somehow advantageous to him, ignoring the fact the CO would give the formation order automatically)

The player has NO radius. He can send battalions where-ever, but if he doesn't keep the parts coherent, then he will probably be defeated piecemeal. He can change Bn orders, on a die roll, but this is more difficult if the receiving unit is in combat.

(PS- I've calculated this post is 14 times longer than my average, but raises said average by just 1 character!)

I think that it is best solved with multi player games and limited table talk. Take for example one of our games recently where we had 3 players on one side and four on the other. Both sides elecetd a Cinc before the battle. Both groups discussed their plans privately and decided which troops would be under which commanders. The C in C would give an overview of what he wanted the sub commanders to do and they each interpreted those orders as they understood them (or wanted to follow them or not) as well as reacting to situations that arise in front of them. Multi player games are great for losing soem level of command control because the personality of your subs takes over. I enjoy thes games more than one on one games.

rampantlion: I think you are correct about multi-player games, especially if its a big game. However, we don't always have enough players to do that.

For me, writing rules that apply equally well to games with lots of players, with only 2 players, and even with solitaire play is perhaps THE biggest challenge. If you knew exactly how many players there will be and what forces each will control, it'd make designing the game much easier. Most board games are like that: You know there will be X number of players (usually 2) and since the game IS the scenario, and vice versa, you know what forces are involved, etc. Miniatures rules have to be much more flexible, and that ain't easy!

LH wrote:
The regulating battalion is an elegant solution for real commanders. On the table you are effectively imposing (guess what) a Command Radius- the battalions have to maintain a certain closeness to be able to see at least one other. This then produces an effect I've seen in modern skirmish rules (including 40k, so, yes that does have a CR effect), where a figure must be within x cm of another in the same unit.

Last Hussar:
That isn't the way I've seen it work. It is a very different and linear dynamic, and is a function of movement, not a circle drawn around a commander. One battalion or brigade or division moves as the regulating unit, and the remaining battalions etc. maintain formation on it. That's how large numbers of troops moved, and just as gamers want and need simplicity, so did commanding officers and their troops.

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

Mike has a Yahoo site with his rules on it for those interested. (He is another VLB site alumnus, so I wanted to give him some support). link

>>>>>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 anywa<<<<<

My reasoning for this is simply because I know (from prior military experience as an Infantry soldier myself) that typical battlefield combat range for Infantry was and is at the high end, 300mtrs. It is part of the Australian army's training doctrine that most combat soldiers are only capable of seeing and dealing with what is going on in front of them, or anywhere around them to 300yds max. Weapons may be able to fire much longer than 300yds but as you cannot discern a viable target above 300yds without artificial help such as a scope or the terrain is so clear that aiming is easy the "extreme" combat range is considered to be 300yds with most combat taking place at considerably lesser ranges.

Now, yes I know I am speaking from a modern point of view but I have read the exact same words with regards to the same topic during the Napoleonic wars. I cannot remember the exact book or author but I have read it, thus why I cut off engagement range at that point (300yds). Infantry were not that worried about the goings on above this range and only became affected when the enemy closed below this range. Cavalry is another problem, because it is a little easier to spot and establish that it is indeed cavalry the range corrospondingly increases to 500yds (half a km). This is also due to the fact that Infantry (and other cavalry for that matter) took notice of enemy cavalry as a much graver threat and thus would react sooner if faced with their appearance.

I hope this clarified my point of view ?

Shane

>>>>>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.<<<<<

As much as I am a little taken back by your comments I will not take it the wrong way, instead I will explain my meaning.

Far from being someone who does not understand simulation games and how they work you should take heed of your first sentance, ""While I have little idea how your rules work"" No your niavity is excused in this regard.

My meaning is, how many times have you seen a player suddenly, for no apparent reason, change his Infantry into square, even though they cannot pysically see the enemy cavalry approching? how many times have you seen a player suddenly, for no apparent reason, switch direction of his forces when his men cannot actually see their enemy advance on their flank? How many other like situations occur in which players seem to prepare for something they can see from their helicopter when their forces would be oblivious to the change of situation?

answer ? many many times !!

So, knowing players are going to try to second guess an enemy move with a counter move that realistically should not be allowed I have set parameters in place to stop this, it is part of the command control rules I devised and work to stop players simply doing as they please.

If you enjoy playing games where you are free to do as you please then more power to you, but you would not get far in our group.

Shane

I have to say I have never been a fan of the command radius beyond the fact that this is a method to constrain the player. For me the best method of ensuring a division operates in a reasonably historic manner is to encourage the use of tactics that reflect normal Grand Tactics. Basically divisional formations are expected to be scaled up versions of battalion formations.

There are of course many examples of flexible behaviour for example the way in which Davout's corp was handled at Auerstadt. My current thinking is to explain Grand Tactics and expect players to follow historic practice plus use commanders and their senior staff officers to manage the exceptional circumstances.

An interesting discussion but I feel not really getting at the core issue.

I think we all agree that what command radius attempts to portray is the ability or lack thereof of units to move around on the battle field, vs. the ability of the gamer to see all threats to his units and move those units however he desires.

First command radius, good or bad. The real issue is not that, but how does this mechanic work in any given set of rules. Does it capture what the designer are attempting to portray. Let's look at the Guard example at Waterloo. If Napoleon sends off the guard to fight the Prussians but they go beyond Napoleons command radius then no the concept is missing the point entirely. The real issue is Napoleon is sending an order to the commander of the Guard Formation to go fight the Prussians. So the further away this commander is from Napoleon the less likely Nappy can react to changing situations. So harder to issue new orders without any real intelligence. So is the Commander with the guard sending information to Napoleon, or is he more realistically going about accomplishing Napoleons orders in stopping and defeating the Prussians, he probably will not need any new orders unless he believes he will fail in his mission or a lot more Prussians appear. So a command radius for Napoleon to the units is completely inaccurate. However, on the smaller scale if we are talking units representing battalions then a command radius is an easy mechanic to portray the multiple reasons that units would stay close to each other for mutual support.

The problem then becomes one of Scale, if we are dealing with battalions along the line of more traditional games (From Valmy to Waterloo, Empire etc) then command radius is an easy way to represent part of the command and control and doctrine that the armies operated under. On this level the command radius affecting units should be on the lower level. So a brigade commander should have a command radius to his units but the Corps commanders command radius should be to his Division commanders and effect the ability to change and issue orders. When you look at more of the newer games such (Sams rules, NB, etc) where a unit on the table is a Brigade or perhaps larger then a review of what the command radius is representing is needed. Did Brigades stay close to each other for tactical reasons or was it a command and control reason, without a doubt both. So instead of a command radius can we apply negative modifiers for being "too" far away from friendly units? But is the commander's distance to the brigades even relevant once the formation has received its orders. Probably not, however the command radius is probably appropriate to represents the ability of the commander to perceive a new threat or situation and react to this, again about orders. Whether this represents couriers or the commander himself seeing the events does not really matter, the issue is do we want a simple mechanic to represent this series of events or do we want to capture those aspects that we think make up this effect.

So command radius is a great way to show the problem that occurs as units get further away from the commander on a tactical level. His ability to perceive threats or opportunities diminish is hampered the further away he is from the events. So should units be stopped because they are x distance from a commander probably not but the ability of the commander to change the orders to formations that are relatively far away should be limited. So we are back to what level are we representing.

I look at command radius as only part of the equation. In From Valmy to Waterloo, I have command radii but they act in different ways. On the tactical level a unit that is out side his brigade commanders range act normally, however, in close combat it does have a negative modifier for being beyond the command radius of its Brigade commander. On the next level we have Division commanders. If units are beyond the command radius of Division commanders than they may not advance closer to the enemy than 800 meters, they can still stand and defend normally, move away, or move freely outside of 800 meters etc. The Division commanders control radius is also affected by the order he is operating under. Under a defend order the units have more latitude in operating outside of the command radius, but it is still limited to a multiple of the range under an attack order. On the Corps and Army level the command radius is to the subordinate commanders. The further away the harder it is to activate new orders, representing the factor that if the commander is far away it is harder to perceive threats or opportunities. It in no way limits the commanders movement or the movement of the units in his command.

So command radius is just a tool in the designers tool box, the real question is does it achieve the effect that the designer wants, and does that portray what can be shown to have happened on the battlefields of history. This mechanic can represent various aspects of the battlefield but in the end it is always an abstract, the real issue in my mind does the game benefit from the mechanic to show the possible events that could occure in history.

William

Last Hussar,

"Conliffe simplified orders by having each battalion follow an arrow on a map. Each BnHQ does have a 'Command Radius', true, but I contend this isn't a COMMAND radius, but a COHERENCY radius."

Shako? Play them myself.

Glad you brought this up, apologies for quoting myself:

"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."

Notice the similarity of intent between Shako and Regulating?

Shako 2 also has "National Doctrine" which gives support bonus for combinations of column and line prescribed by nation type. This means it pays to keep in tight formation and relative position.

To quote – Oh me again! "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."

Funny that sounds like Shako 2 as well doesn't it?

So let's hear a Big (historical) Up for Arty then!

Well almost because its yet another attempt to get players to adopt historical methods by introducing devices to achieve it without explaining what its supposed to represent!

Why do authors insist on treating rules buyers like idiots, conning them into playing history, in a situation like this, where it can so easily be explained.

>>My meaning is, how many times have you seen a player suddenly, for no apparent reason, change his Infantry into square, even though they cannot pysically see the enemy cavalry approching? how many times have you seen a player suddenly, for no apparent reason, switch direction of his forces when his men cannot actually see their enemy advance on their flank? How many other like situations occur in which players seem to prepare for something they can see from their helicopter when their forces would be oblivious to the change of situation?

The command helicopter works both ways though. For instance, the infantry change to square before they can see the cavalry. However, the cavalry don't know the infantry are there to be attacked, so why are they heading straight for them?

Kilkrazy,

This is probably because the C-in-C can see the enemy and orders the Cavalry to advance…but yes, I do see your point. However, you can see what I am saying can't you ?

>>Kilkrazy,

>>This is probably because the C-in-C can see the enemy and orders the Cavalry to advance…but yes, I do see your point. However, you can see what I am saying can't you ?

We come back to the case of the Charge of the Light Brigade. The C-in-C could see the guns he intended as the target, but the local commander couldn't and charged a different set of guns.

It ties everything together really -- C-in-C viewpoint, written orders, courier, command radius, initiative (or lack thereof) of the local commander. Quite an interesting case study.

Of course the Light Brigade is remembered because it was a fairly exceptional C&C failure with disastrous results. It is probable equally or more instructive to look at the far more numerous cases where things went according to plan. Like good news generally these tend not to be so well reported or remembered.

We can rationalise the effect of the helicopter borne general if we want to. It applies equally to both sides so it is fair for a game.

Personally I like C&C -- I think it's a central point of fighting battles -- but not in all games, perhaps. Sometimes I just want to blow some stuff up.

William:
[If Napoleon sends off the guard to fight the Prussians… the further away this commander is from Napoleon the less likely Nappy can react to changing situations. So is the Commander with the guard sending information to Napoleon, or is he more realistically going about accomplishing Napoleons orders in stopping and defeating the Prussians, he probably will not need any new orders unless he believes he will fail in his mission or a lot more Prussians appear. So a command radius for Napoleon to the units is completely inaccurate.]

The thing about games with fixed "orders," though, is that they could never account for all the variables that came up in play, and players tended to do what they needed to do in each circumstance. I remember countless games of "Empire" in which people rationalized attacking all along the line, despite being on "Defend" orders, because it would be too much of a pain to go through all those tedious game mechanics for changing the order chit. Hey, the Prussians attacked me, and took some ground, so I'm allowed to counterattack, which means throwing in this cavalry charge, and so on on…

And then, of course, many games allowed the local officer on the scene some latitude to change his own orders, if X, Y, or Z happened….

I think many games in the 1990s switched over to the "command radius" concept as an attempt to get away from all that baggage of trying to define every single thing you could or couldn't do under an order chit. It caused no end of arguments:

"I'm attacking this Prussian artillery battery"
— Hey, you can't do that; your division has orders to charge the hill, which is due North. That battery is to the East!
"But my division would never advance with this battery at point-blank range right on my flank, hitting me with canister like this! We'd eliminate this threat, first, and THEN take the hill"
— Oh, Okay… But my cavalry will countercharge to protect the battery.
"Well, if you're going to bring your cavalry into it, then I'm forming square."
— But you have attack orders – you have to advance!
"And I'm countercharging your counterchargers with my own corps cavalry!"
— But they're ordered to take the North Hill!
"But the Attack order allows me to support any other units in my corps, that are attacking the enemy – it doesn't say in which direction!"

And so on. We've all seen it. Order chits became a "Do whatever you want" order, unless you could get the gamemaster's attention for several consecutive minutes.

[So command radius is a great way to show the problem that occurs as units get further away from the commander on a tactical level. His ability to perceive threats or opportunities diminish is hampered the further away he is from the events.]

Sure, that applies to the *commander*, but rules usually end up penalizing the individual *units* for their commander's lack of perception. I was beginning to wonder if there really is any historical justification for this: Why would it be harder for a brigadier to do something, to react to a changed local circumstance, etc., just because he's more distant from the corps commander?

Funny thing is, the group I play with really never have any arguments over C&C rules anymore, I have very strict conditions which avoid or cut off any attempt of players to wrought or back door the system. Everyone knows what they can and cannot do and our games chug along quite nicely. Some players hate rules that enforce strict guidelines but I think they are needed to avoid bad feelings or bloody noses across the table.

Shane

I used to play Stars *N* Bars, the ACW rules by Scotty Bowden based on Empire.

At the start, our club had a lot of trouble wrapping our heads around the brigade/division/corps boundaries, the combat mode chit system, and the grand tactical/tactical movement. It was all very different to rules we were used to playing such as WRG 6th edition.

Once we got used to the concepts though, we found that the key to success was to obey the rules and think ahead. If you didn't bother to lay out units properly and give them missions that made sense, you were unable to react properly when the enemy hit you.

Conversely, by organising your units and giving them suitable orders, you were able to attack flexibly, or hold and counterattack and do maximum damage to an oncoming enemy attack. And so on.

In other words the system had consistent internal logic and it worked, and it stopped people from just doing whatever they wanted to at the time. To my mind this is one of the key points of C&C in a simulation rather than a game environment.

I am sure people will say Stars *N* Bars was too complicated. As far as I can recall, it included mode chits with dependant action options, unit boundaries and coherency, and command radius when you wanted to change orders. But it worked, and it reproduced the sort of things you read about in ACW history books.

"Sure, that applies to the *commander*, but rules usually end up penalizing the individual *units* for their commander's lack of perception. I was beginning to wonder if there really is any historical justification for this: Why would it be harder for a brigadier to do something, to react to a changed local circumstance, etc., just because he's more distant from the corps commander?"
Interesting discussion by the way.
So Sam do you have a solution for simulating a brigadier's brain? How do you recreate artificial intelligence for subordinates that are not represented by a player? The choices for the artificial subordinate are: the unit does what the superior wants (which of course may be good or bad depending on how things turn out), does something that the superior didn't want or order (again could be good or bad) or does nothing even though this may be the worst case.

This has been bashed around since at least the 1960's (or maybe before but I wasn't gaming before the mid 1960's). The most accurate simulation is having another gamer acting as a subordinate but, as has been mentioned, this is not always possible. The more comprehensive solutions mentioned above are the least likely to be used or remembered in the heat of a game. The less detailed such as the much maligned command radius are more likely to be incorporated during play but may not represent "true" command difficulties or opportunities.

So, 40 years on we are still asking: "How do you simulate a non-existent subordinate?

I have played in a game or two before where the subcommanders were simulated through a die roll, based on what the commander wanted them to do, what the subcommander interpreted the order to be, and how far away the commander was (I suppose that simulated a courier without an actual figure).

It has been a while but if I remember correctly the commander would give a general movement order to a unit. If it was within "command range" there was a hire chance the order would be carried out, but there was a chance the unit would do something else. Being closer would, I suppose, allow the commander to see that what he wanted was not happening and react to it. Further away it was harder, but not impossible, to get the unit to do what the commander wanted.

Of course, the units could also advance slower or faster (or not at all) than the commander wanted (Order a charge, get an advance. Order a hold, get a charge), but again closer to the commander then closer to the desired outcome.

Units could fire as desired at the closest enemy, but required some sort of intervention to ignore the enemy breathing down their necks to engage a less threatening (to them anyway) opponent.

Of course all this required unit commanders to have rating for aggression or whatever so the orders could be adjusted (Is the general Ewell or Jackson?).

Initially I was skeptical but it worked fairly well. If you really wanted the unit to do a particular thing, you could attach the commander, eliminating the random result for that unit.

[So Sam do you have a solution for simulating a brigadier's brain? ]

No, although I give props to Fire & Fury for trying to tackle it. Unfortunately, that method left a lot of people dissatisfied because it made higher-level officers totally irrelevant. At most, they were just modifiers to the brigade rolls.

Actually, what I'm saying in this thread is that I've been thinking that maybe we should just do away with all attempts at command radius and artificial intelligence altogether.

Maybe there's a cleaner way to write movement rules that will mitigate the problems of "lone wolf" or "renegade" omniscient units. If that can be tamed, I suspect that most players wouldn't miss the structure of the command rules.

I think that a lot of players are dissatisfied with simple and arguably inadequate C&C rules. At the same time, they do not accept total failure to treat C&C, however they find the effort required to operate a more complex system, such as the Stars *n* Bars one I briefly described, too taxing.

There is a theory that if a great system for doing something were possible, it would have already been invented. See the argument about variable bound timing, for example.

It is equally possible, IMO, that the systems for doing something have already been invented, but players disregard them for being too complicated.

Complication is not a virtue in itself, but sometimes it is necessary to simulate complex processes.

Computerisation of C&C could solve a lot of the book-keeping problems, though it brings in new problems too.

A number of C&C mechanisms already exist and perhaps they offer the most reasonable compromises between simulation and playabiity. Perhaps it doesn't get any better than this.

I guess I wouldn't miss them since if in the heat of a game I often forget to use them. So maybe the answer is that there is no answer or maybe it is a scenario by scenario problem. "Take the hill and distractions be d___d!" says the CinC to Brigadier Sir Guileless Wondering. Interesting discussion.

Scotsman- I realise that the Regulating Battalion isn't the normal 'Bull's-eye' command radius, but you will notice that below that paragraph I compared it with the 40k etc method. What you effectively have is lots of little CRs- if a unit goes out of LoS then it, and everything 'downriver', losses command. (Out of interest, this must have happened- what did they do to re-integrate the brigade?).

Trajanus- I feel like you are arguing with my agreement- probably down to the lack of 93% of communication that's non verbal.

Shako isn't quite regulating, as it does impose a maximum radius- the Divisional commander can't have a long line of his battalions, with him at one end- he has to stay fairly central.

It also does impose a command radius on the Players General(PG- the base that represents him on the table)- one of the original points in the original post was about moving to deliver the orders. Shako has ADCs, which move at 18" per turn.

You mention the National Characteristics. Again this is the rules FORCING the player to act historically (I am assuming it is similar to Shako I). If you want the +1 you have to keep your 1805 Austrians in line, despite what the French are doing. You don't do it for history; you do it for the game- as you make the point.

That's the nub of it- Shane put his finger on it with his Square reacting to Cavalry Charge, when neither knew the other was there.

Everybody is talking about those commanders who ignored 'CR' and sent units dashing off left right and centre, and were proved right. They are the minority. Most commanders stick to doctrine. Great Manoeuvres are like those blindingly obvious inventions that make the inventor a millionaire- you may say 'that's so simple I could have thought of that', the point is, you didn't!

If that first battle where Nelson broke the line had gone badly, then he would have been court-martialled (for breaking doctrine), executed, (for breaking it and losing), and we would be coming up with ways to stop players doing it- "I don't care how effective it is- The navy never let anyone do it after that idiot Nelson tried it".

You can't imbue the NPG's with knowledge beyond their period- care for Blitzkreig ECW anyone? (I'll concentrate the cavalry at one small point, break though with the dragoons, and mop up with the infantry…)

Shane wrote:
As much as I am a little taken back by your comments I will not take it the wrong way, instead I will explain my meaning.

Shane:
I'm glad you did. As I said, I couldn't comment on your rules. I did say 'in general'

Shane wrote:
Far from being someone who does not understand simulation games and how they work you should take heed of your first sentance, ""While I have little idea how your rules work"" No your niavity is excused in this regard.

Scotsman:
Gracias with a Scots braid.

Shane wrote:
My meaning is, how many times have you seen a player suddenly, for no apparent reason, change his Infantry into square, even though they cannot pysically see the enemy cavalry approching? how many times have you seen a player suddenly, for no apparent reason, switch direction of his forces when his men cannot actually see their enemy advance on their flank? How many other like situations occur in which players seem to prepare for something they can see from their helicopter when their forces would be oblivious to the change of situation?

Scotsman:
Good examples. The real question is: when and why were squares formed? If you can determine that and write rules to mimic such situations, there is no need to write penalizing rules. Same is true of players responding to forces they should be oblivious too. The 200 foot general is a real weakness to most table top games, but that usually is by choice. [Why have hidden movement when the spectacle of all those painted troops are a core reason you game with miniatures…]

Rules are instructions. I can tell you NOT to do a thousand things including 'don't stand' and never achieve what I can with one simple instruction: sit. I was simply pointing out that most rules that state what you can't do, either haven't captured the process that the players CAN do, so they revert to 'don't'. If you've ever played the board game Monopoly, you will notice there are NO rules telling the players that their pieces can't move in the center of the board, or that they can't refuse to move when it's their turn. The reason is well-known to professional game designers--there's no need. The rules state clearly what is to be done and the game processes provide options for doing otherwise. The same is true of "For The People" and "Hannibal". There are no rules telling players they can't move between spaces that aren't connected with lines. No need.

Shane wrote:
So, knowing players are going to try to second guess an enemy move with a counter move that realistically should not be allowed I have set parameters in place to stop this, it is part of the command control rules I devised and work to stop players simply doing as they please.

Scotsman:
All I am saying is that perhaps if a process for making decisions were in place that dealt with LOS and what they know visa vie their orders, rules to stop certain behaviors wouldn't be as necessary, or needed at all. The question players are asking is not "what can't I do?", but "What can I do?"

Shane wrote:
If you enjoy playing games where you are free to do as you please then more power to you, but you would not get far in our group.

Scotsman:
I'm not. On the other hand, I am not all that enamored with rules that have one defined action and twelve exceptions, limits, and penalties, particularly when most are unnecessary if the defined action had been based on actual processes or written better.

It isn't a matter freedom from rules vs restrictive rules. Games ARE rules. I was simply pointing out that rules to stop players from doing something isn't necessary if you've clearly stated what they can do. Another example. I have yet to read a rule that says "You can't move your units except during the movement phase." Why not? I am sure lots of players would like to. But as the rules are clear on when movement is done, such restrictive rules aren't necessary.

And that certainly wasn't a criticism of your rules, because I haven't seen them. It was a response to the idea of your comments in previous posts that echo this: "knowing players are going to try to second guess an enemy move with a counter move that realistically should not be allowed I have set parameters in place to stop this."

Again, this is a known game design methodology, and presented here as a generalization. The command radius rules are attempts to corral units and player movements that have little to do with why Napoleonic commanders moved and deployed troops. They are simply a 'stop' rule.

Shane wrote;
Now, yes I know I am speaking from a modern point of view but I have read the exact same words with regards to the same topic during the Napoleonic wars. I cannot remember the exact book or author but I have read it, thus why I cut off engagement range at that point (300yds). Infantry were not that worried about the goings on above this range and only became affected when the enemy closed below this range. Cavalry is another problem, because it is a little easier to spot and establish that it is indeed cavalry the range corrospondingly increases to 500yds (half a km). This is also due to the fact that Infantry (and other cavalry for that matter) took notice of enemy cavalry as a much graver threat and thus would react sooner if faced with their appearance.

I hope this clarified my point of view ?

Scotsman:
It does, thank you. What about artillery? They engaged three times as far as your 300 yard limit? Obviously, if artillerists were giving 1000 yards as the effective range of artillery [Tousard and Ayde], they could see targets that far. I guess I would simply caution that your engagement range should lead players to respond in similar fashion to contemporaries who didn't have such defined engagement areas, even compared to current warriors.

>>>>>Maybe there's a cleaner way to write movement rules that will mitigate the problems of "lone wolf" or "renegade" omniscient units. If that can be tamed, I suspect that most players wouldn't miss the structure of the command rules.<<<<<

Well, there is, my own rules have Unit order charts which each player notates what each unit is going to do each turn. This style of rules is not very welcomed these days because most players want simplicity but I have managed to re-programme my own group to do this and very quickly they have come round and actually enjoy it. This habbit stops the CC problems almost to 100% immediately.

Shane

Scotsman:
It does, thank you. What about artillery? They engaged three times as far as your 300 yard limit? Obviously, if artillerists were giving 1000 yards as the effective range of artillery [Tousard and Ayde], they could see targets that far. I guess I would simply caution that your engagement range should lead players to respond in similar fashion to contemporaries who didn't have such defined engagement areas, even compared to current warriors.

Yes, artillery, as will all units has a 300yd engagement range. However, Artillery is classified as light or open order troops and open order troops cannot trigger activation of Formed troops if on a Defend order. But, if any troops come within musketry range then they are free to blast away back at them.

With artillery, they, as you say can fire to 1000yds, taking this in mind artillery in our system can fire at any and all targets that come into view as long as they have LOS, regardles of range. But, there are restrictions of target priority :

1/ Target is in Point blank range
2/ Target is in Effective range
3/ Target in at long range
Targets directly in front of the battery must be shot at over targets to the left or right and still in the arc of fire. So there are parameters in place to force players to fire at priority targets which I pulled directly out of an Artillery fire manual years ago.

So yes, Artillery is not limited by the 300-500yd engagement range, it can fire to the limit of the range of the gun provided there are viable and legal targets.

Shane

Shane,

"Funny thing is, the group I play with really never have any arguments over C&C rules anymore"

Neither do we but that's down to co-operative play not just rules.

A player will check out his next idea with the opposition prior to making the move. If he is taking the rise, we talk through it.

In fact we are so used to playing this way one of us will often say – 'OK in this instance I could do this or this in the rules but I don't think its on, so I'm going to carry on the way I was going at the start of the move' that style of thing.

Unfortunately you can't write that sort of spirt into a rule set although its some of what George tried to get across (see the VLB thread)in his idea of 'Dialogue'

If a player sees every game as a 'must win' its a different approach altogether.

Scotsman,

"The command radius rules are attempts to corral units and player movements that have little to do with why Napoleonic commanders moved and deployed troops. They are simply a 'stop' rule."

Thank you Scotsman – BTW: Can you let me know when you are about to post these points in advance, it could save me a lot of time reading through just to agree with you! :o)

Mike the Mug,

"There are of course many examples of flexible behaviour for example the way in which Davout's corp was handled at Auerstadt"

Funnily enough this one comes up each time we have this kind of debate. Normally as a counter point to Regulating.

I missed it first time round, thanks for bringing it up even if you did not mean it that way.

Just in case anyone is wondering – my stock response is best trained combat units of the period acting in response to abnormal conditions.

I think you would have a fine old time trying to reproduce it with command radius rules in most cases and I doubt you could do it at all with any set that uses a base per brigade.

Should you ask I would also suggest that Regulating would still have been employed although for much shorter time frames than in a more conventional action. It was never intended that units should hold to it once the firing started. It just got the block of units to where they were needed in the most effective and controlled manner.

If you've ever played the board game Monopoly, you will notice there are NO rules telling the players that their pieces can't move in the center of the board, or that they can't refuse to move when it's their turn. The reason is well-known to professional game designers--there's no need.

Ah- but I'm guessing they have never met a wargamer. You all know what I mean. Lets face it, I bet no one at a Monopoly tournament is ever accused of being a rules lawyer. Traditional board games are not trying to be accurate, so no one can argue "I'd find a cheaper place to stay".

I know this has been relatively rules generic, but I had a thought and a question for Sam. In Might and Reason a unit that is out of command is considered "vulnerable" for combat (hence penalizing the unit's ability to fight, as you have been questioning the reasonableness of here). You have a roll for each division to be inactive, active, or spontaneously charge. Might it be appropriate to use a separate roll for units out of command, so they might not do the same thing as their division? Thinking out loud and don't have any specific suggestion for HOW to modify the chart for the individual unit. Perhaps a larger chance of doing nothing, or even of falling back?

Phil

>"There is a theory that if a great system for doing something were possible, it would have already been invented."<

If Thomas Edison had taken this attitude, we'd all have to watch TV by candlelight!

Or if the Wright brothers had taken this attitude, we'd have to bomb the Taliban from remote-control balloons!

Or if Henry Ford had taken this attitude, we'd all be driving Toyotos! Oh, wait…

Thank you Scotsman – BTW: Can you let me know when you are about to post these points in advance, it could save me a lot of time reading through just to agree with you! :o)

Well, Drat. And here I thought it was my scintillating prose that was the real attraction. I'll send up flares or something. ;-j

"Maybe there's a cleaner way to write movement rules that will mitigate the problems of "lone wolf" or "renegade" omniscient units. If that can be tamed, I suspect that most players wouldn't miss the structure of the command rules."

Army s.o.p`s as rules for games:
What could be "cleaner" than the systems that operated and functioned quite well enough in their day?
The armies functioned, manouevred, when they needed to and were regulated by rules of their own.

The exceptions:
Detachments that you have referred were made (one division scattered all along Wellington`s first line in defensive posts).
In this case, command and control was not a problem as pointed out earlier as no manouevre in grand bodies was intended, the position a defensive one.

"The problems of "lone wolf" or "renegade" omniscient units":
Yes, this is where you need regulation (the operations of commands in lines of battle) and rules that penalize units that somehow are moved without orders, or by the initaitive of players/sub-generals get "out of the control" of the higher commander.
If your thinking about units in games rather than lots of units represented on table by one single base, then you really do need some rules to keep them all together.

Movement orders:
So what is the problem? Objectives given in orders to corps commanders were delegated to divisions and brigades.
The structures and the rules for their operation (or modes of operation) are really quite simple enough and much less opaque or mystifying than radii, or counting of pips, or cards or chits!
These methods actually require very little translation or explanation – ohhh, unless they`re in French of course!

[The thing about games with fixed "orders," though, is that they could never account for all the variables that came up in play, and players tended to do what they needed to do in each circumstance. I remember countless games of "Empire" in which people rationalized attacking all along the line, despite being on "Defend" orders, because it would be too much of a pain to go through all those tedious game mechanics for changing the order chit. Hey, the Prussians attacked me, and took some ground, so I'm allowed to counterattack, which means throwing in this cavalry charge, and so on on…]

Sam I agree that is a problem with many rules but not all, however, that is easily over come by having fixed requirements to orders but still allow flexibility within those requirements. In the Defend order example, it is an easy fix. The Division has an area which is the area physically occupied by the units when the order was activated and extends to 500 meters beyond that. So now the unit can launch limited counter attacks to retake lost ground, and it also allows the unit to launch limited pre emptive assaults on formations attacking it. But since it is only 500 meters out from the unit's original position and if the designer has done his job then the armies will be setting up around 1000 meters from each other. So yes you can attack those Prussians that attacked you but you can not go beyond 500 meters of the original position that you where defending.

[And then, of course, many games allowed the local officer on the scene some latitude to change his own orders, if X, Y, or Z happened….
I think many games in the 1990s switched over to the "command radius" concept as an attempt to get away from all that baggage of trying to define every single thing you could or couldn't do under an order chit. It caused no end of arguments:]

Sam I feel that again you are looking at only one side of the issue, and defining command radius as a fixed distance that units can be from its commanders in order to move. This is a very limited use of a command radius. As I said earlier you can use command radius in determining how easy or hard it is for commanders to issue orders, and command radius for the Brigade commanders battalions as a distance that forces the player to use historical deployment distances. If for some reason he does not want to use these distance than the units can still move out of the range, however they suffer a small negative modifier for this, and if the rules are showing tactical factors then a lot more negative modifiers would apply for unsupported flanks, rear, more enemy than friends etc. So the real problem is that command radius as a means to control the distance units are from their commanders is wrong and not a very useful mechanic.

["I'm attacking this Prussian artillery battery"
— Hey, you can't do that; your division has orders to charge the hill, which is due North. That battery is to the East!
"But my division would never advance with this battery at point-blank range right on my flank, hitting me with canister like this! We'd eliminate this threat, first, and THEN take the hill"
— Oh, Okay… But my cavalry will countercharge to protect the battery.
"Well, if you're going to bring your cavalry into it, then I'm forming square."
— But you have attack orders – you have to advance!
"And I'm countercharging your counterchargers with my own corps cavalry!"
— But they're ordered to take the North Hill!
"But the Attack order allows me to support any other units in my corps, that are attacking the enemy – it doesn't say in which direction!" ]

Again you are taking your rather limited view on command radius and fixed orders.

The counter scenario would be the attacking division would have recived an attack order, under the attack order all units in the division must move to within 300 meters of the enemy and no front line units can change position. The Division commander is 2000 meters from his commander which forces him to have a very low percentage chance of activating his order, he fails to activate the order for three turns and finally activates his orders (representing the orders traveling down the chain of command to end with the battalions) and starts marching off, since the attack order states he must move all his units at least half column move each turn, then his entire force is committed to the attack. Meanwhile the French Division in on a defend order so he can move his units around freely within his defensive zone, when he sees the Prussians who are at 1200 meters from him start to advance towards his flank, he moves some of his artillery to cover his flank. Now the Prussian player has specific requirements that he must fulfill, his units must all advance at least half their column move towards the enemy put when they are within 300 meters then the gamer is free to move them as he wishes. On the defending side the French player is free to move units around in his defensive area, (which is his command radius x 2 in Valmy) and if he wants he can launch the cav at the advancing enemy, which can form square when they see the approaching cav, which is a die roll, based on distance, smoke, cas. Etc.

The real issue here is that we always love to do this as gamers, we look at one aspect of a rule set, or mechanic without looking at what is linked to it and affects that aspect. This is the case with command radius. And yes I agree if it is only purpose is to make sure units cannot move beyond x meters of its commander then yes it really is inaccurate. But if it is part of "system" in the rules that ties together various cause and affects with the end result that it forces the gamer to act in somewhat of a historical manner then great.

[And so on. We've all seen it. Order chits became a "Do whatever you want" order, unless you could get the gamemaster's attention for several consecutive minutes.]
[So command radius is a great way to show the problem that occurs as units get further away from the commander on a tactical level. His ability to perceive threats or opportunities diminish is hampered the further away he is from the events.]

[Sure, that applies to the *commander*, but rules usually end up penalizing the individual *units* for their commander's lack of perception. I was beginning to wonder if there really is any historical justification for this: Why would it be harder for a brigadier to do something, to react to a changed local circumstance, etc., just because he's more distant from the corps commander? ]

Yes many "orders" are vague and gamers love that. But again if this mechanic is part of a "system" that portrays the reality of how units moved on the battlefield then great.

The one thing that we are missing is that command radius cannot be the same in a game where battalions are the basic unit (From Valmy to Waterloo, Empire etc) as that of game where the units are Brigades such as yours. And we still have to look at what does the command radius accomplish in each set of rules and how does it tie into the rest of the game system!!

In a game where the units are brigades the command radius would I think try to represent the methods that divisions used to fight. Is the command radius better used to represent the ability to change orders to the units? Which is the way I would go, or does it restrict the ability of the unit to move away from other units, which is what I agree does not make sense as a stand alone explanation. The real question I feel is how do we restrict the gamer. By this I mean how do we represent the written accounts of battles that we have on to the table. Do we allow the gamer to do whatever he wants at any time with perhaps one account of this happening and ignoring the rest of the 20+ years of the conflicts, or do we attempt to give him an abstract set of mechanics which allow him to operate as was done historically while allowing him to represent that rare even of the unit moving of by itself but with the accompanying dangers?

William

[I had a thought and a question for Sam. In Might and Reason a unit that is out of command is considered "vulnerable" for combat (hence penalizing the unit's ability to fight, as you have been questioning the reasonableness of here)… Might it be appropriate to use a separate roll for units out of command, so they might not do the same thing as their division?]

I'm content to let a finished game stay finished. I like M&R, and don't need to change it. On this thread, though, I've been thinking about future projects and how I (or anybody) might re-think this whole approach.

William:
["In the Defend order example, it is an easy fix. The Division has an area which is the area physically occupied by the units when the order was activated and extends to 500 meters beyond that. So now the unit can launch limited counter attacks to retake lost ground, and it also allows the unit to launch limited pre emptive assaults on formations attacking it. But since it is only 500 meters out from the unit's original position and if the designer has done his job then the armies will be setting up around 1000 meters from each other. So yes you can attack those Prussians that attacked you but you can not go beyond 500 meters of the original position that you where defending."]

I agree that that would be one way to handle it. But it's a bit much book-keeping for me, to note, either on paper, or with markers on the board, the "box" of operations for each division, and the "original position" for each unit, each time it gets such an order.

Not to mention that many players prefer not to start with the armies already set-up at spitting range, and thus scripted into the historical scenario. Many people play "What-If" or fictional scenarios, or meeting engagements, etc., so there is often a lot more leeway for how units move about the table, and thus potentially a lot more complex interaction with orders.

That's what I meant when I said that the use of a "command radius" was a way to get around all those more complex and book-keeping-intensive methods using order chits and "brigade areas" and "relative integrity" and what-not.

William: ["command radius cannot be the same in a game where battalions are the basic unit… as that of game where the units are Brigades…"]

Sure, I agree with that. At the smaller scale, one could make a more literal argument for what it means when you place that officer on the board. He might literally be "there" for X-minutes. That kind of literalism is probably not appropriate when the game uses a bigger ground and time scale.

Just a few ideas to throw into the stewpot, from a retired scientist/engineer.

When trying to model something, you should try to get as close as possible to the "real thing", because then attributes of the "real thing" will get into your model and into the exercising of your model.

Division (and above) STAFF officers did not (usually) directly command troops. They took in information (delayed in getting to them- they weren't 200 feet tall), assimilated it, wrote orders, (we can see the detail level that they wrote from actual examples), and then the orders had to travel to the officers who actually commanded the troops.(FIELD officers at brigade level, gee they called them something different!)…. Therefore there should be a delay in writting orders. There should be a delay in receiving orders. There should be a delay in a brigadier general reading the orders and telling his battalions, what to do. The PLAYER should have to think ahead and do the same. PPPPPPP (proper prior planning prevents poor performance). Putting in this mechanism does away with the need for command radius arguments at this level……

The field officer (brigade and below) can see his whole unit. He is seldom more than 350 yards from anybody in the unit. (Think 4 battalions in line with 2 battalions in column formation as a reserve). He can signal (by drum or flag) for a quick meeting and have his orders being executed in 5 minutes. He can just move out the nearest regulating battalion. He can give immediate commands by drum/bugle signals. All his sub-units are in practical immediate command radius. If he detaches a sub-unit, it would have to have specific written orders (think courtmarshal), stick to them and suffer morale penalties. (Let alone that an isolated battalion would be easy prey).

A brigade commander should be allowed to quit a mission and go on the defensive. He is not allowed to undertake a new mission or move closer to the enemy with orders from Division.

Light troops and cavalry have implicit missions of attacking disadvantaged targets of opportunity but have to test their unit/commander rashness rating.

I notice even the general is suffering Scale Creep- he started off at a 100ft, and is now 200ft- where are you measuring to…?

But it's a bit much book-keeping for me

Thats the problem- we want a realistic command structure, with out using the methods that produced it.

The VLB rules have this accurate system, but you need an extensive book keeping method. (NB in the VLB rules 1 stand = 1/2 Bn, so the lowest organisational Officer was at Bde)

I Div is defending the Hill. The enemy advance into view of a Bn. The brigadier sends a message to Division. In the mean time he may NOT launch a pre-emptive strike- his orders are to defend. He may move Bns around in line with his orders to counter the threat (He doesn't have to watch while he is flanked). The Change of Situation (CoS) is noted down, and the courier time to Div tracked.

The report is received (CoS for Div). Div CO may send a report to Corp (again the courier to be tracked). He may change the defensive posture of his Bdes, but ONLY in line with what is known from the Bde report, and to fufill his original orders. Being a Div his area is wider, but still limited.

Report arrives at Corps (CoS) Same as division, only wider.

Report is sent to Army General (Player) Being Top Dog he MAY change stance- but has to wait for a CoS to do so (ie the courier, or actually seeing the enemy). He can tell I Corps to change orientation etc to meet the threat, or what ever he wants. He can also order II Corps to aid, while still defending Village.

The Orders must then travel back by courier to the Corps. Receiving orders is a CoS, so the Corps may react, and implement the new orders (they have no choice)

and so on. Its a nightmare- you need an umpire who really likes clerical work to keep track of the pieces of paper. Plus you really still need a Cohesion Radius at the lowest level to ensure Brigades deploy historically, rather than scattering Bns around.

The point about lower commanders suffering because of the playes can be a red herring- your actual fighting bases need to be kept in touch with the lowest represented commander- either CR or chaining (ie regulating Bn)- to stop the players pushing the lowest units all over the place. Many of the exceptions are pre game decisions (eg rifle companies) where they are not really 'in command' any way- carrying out pre planned missions.

Sam,
I generally agree on letting finished rules stay finished. What I was suggesting was a concrete example of what might be done within the rest of the framework of that game to apply a principle being talked about here (that rather than penalize the unit's fighting ability, impair the player's ability to control it).
Good game as it stands,
Phil

Gouvion St Mango wrote:
That's what I meant when I said that the use of a "command radius" was a way to get around all those more complex and book-keeping-intensive methods using order chits and "brigade areas" and "relative integrity" and what-not.

GStM:

I'm all for avoiding the bookkeeping complexities--I can't even stand rosters, but are those the only two options here, complexities or command radius?

I say that because as a mechanic, while it is simpler, it doesn't make much sense historically. Neither distances or movement processes required units to stay in X distance of some central point. It is sorta like creating a rule in a baseball simulation where the pitcher has to throw seven pitches to each batter because it's too much bookkeeping to keep recording balls and strikes. The game 'results' are much the same, but the process isn't baseball.

I think a lot of this comes down to: does one successfully legislate behavior?

Many of us, myself included, seem to believe one cannot do that. It didn't work with prohibition, it does not work with wargaming. The list of things people can do "wrong" will always exceed the list of things someone prohibits.

Some think that we must move wargamers to do the "right" thing by prohibiting the "wrong" thing. That since people seek out the "wrong" thing we must prevent them from reaching it.

These are the two camps. Frankly, social pressure is better at steering behavior then legislation no matter if it is abortion, drug use, wargaming, etc. The direction you are trying to steer is somewhat irrelevant to what method works the best. As a few have pointed out, the group you came with allowing for something or not allowing for it.

I am all for rules that *allow* the crazy, random, atypical, but historical thing to happen. I play ACW rules that have regiments on the table because otherwise the 1st Minnesota can't save the Union line. Will it happen when I reply Gettysburg? Eh, unlikely, but if there are only brigades on the table that event cannot occur.

I feel similar when it comes to command rules.

Sub-units need to be allowed to be peeled away and succeed. Should it be encouraged by the rules so that it becomes typical? No, but it should be allowed. My great issue with the Command Radius is that often (though not always) it is an on / off switch for units. Inside the units are remote controlled, outside they stop dead. In reality, in the least, they should continue to follow their last orders, they don't *know* if their commanding officer has passed over X" away.

I do know of some rules I think accomplish a lot of what people talk about but I would openly state that it depends on players at least as much as the rules so it isn't as though there is a magic rules set out there that "resolved all this."

Cheers,

The Bandit

Regarding allowing things to happen. Player should be able to do dumb things like Sickles did at Gettysburg (marching his III Corps forward and hanging out away from the main line) or Ney did at Jena (charging forward with only his advanced guard into the fight without direction or support leaving the rest of his VI Corps unattended). It isn't that refights of historical battles should follow what happened, but that it needs to be possible within the bounds of the rules.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit:

Oh, I agree. As you say, "It isn't that refights of historical battles should follow what happened, but that it needs to be possible within the bounds of the rules."

There is a neat book out, written by a well-known game designer, Ralph Koster. It is "A Theory of Fun for Game Design." He presents a great deal of game theory and research, as well as what the computer game community has discovered over several decades working in a multi-billion dollar industry and makes it readable.

We now have bachelors and Masters in "Game Design", based on thirty+ years of asking what makes games work. There have been some applicable discoveries that can be very useful to wargame designers.

Lots of books out there on game design. Most all of the issues dealt with here on TMP are addressed, and any conclusions have been rigorously 'field tested' in the marketplace for a long, long time.

Some conclusions that Koster notes are:
1. It is Human Nature to try and wrinkle out every advantage from any system. Create a game, and players will naturally push the rules and include non-game methods in the hunt for that little extra edge. Poker and Chess are classic examples. Studying the opponent has become as much a winning skill set as any game play, even though no rules include such practices. It's a given. Even generals on the battlefield try and gain any little edge they can. Games have to take that into account.

2. Games don't legislate decisions, they create environments in which players decide. The rules of Poker prescribe processes that the players participate in. They either use the rules to win, or they cheat.

3. A game that prescribes certain behaviors can only apply them to 1. administrative procedures [dealing cards, making bets] or player decisions [you have to bet, you have to fold.] Obviously, a poker game that *requires* you to make a bet or fold isn't going to be much fun, because that supposedly is a decision left to the players in order to play and win.

Many wargames dictate or deny player choices, choices that actual commanders enjoyed. Because players can, and will, eventually choose unhistorical choices in an effort to test the system, rules are attached solely to 'control' player decisions, not to recreate the battlefield environment.

The conclusion is this: If certain behaviors are unhistorical, but bring advantage to the players--even though historically the same actions didn't bring advantage to contemporary soldiers--you have to conclude: If both groups, players and soldiers, hunt for every little edge, then the game system doesn't mirror historical options-- thus requiring 'stop' rules to control behavior--which as I said, is VERY different from recreating the battlefield environment.

Yes, some rules systems might involve placing in "stop" rules as you say but I don't think that is true for all sets. I avoid stop like inhibiting rules and prefer to disadvantage or more to the point have the player notice he loses an advantage if he tries something that does not correspond historically with what he wishes or desires to do.

You have to understand, real war does not have rules, real war is all about getting that advantage as you say, more power to the side that gains it. However, you cannot play wargames the same way, wargames or any game for that matter needs rules to control behavior, sequence and design, how can you play a game without rules?

So, CC on a wargame is necessary, without it you have chaos and players doing what ever they like, whenever they like flouting the system for what they can gain. All games designs must have limitations or barriers because it does not work without them. You might as well go pick up a real rifle and go shoot each other in the back yard if your not going to put in place, parameters, barriers, rules and stipulations in wargames.

Lets be real here, arguing over CC rules and what is right or correct over what is wrong or unrealistic or even going so far as to ridicule a game designer for what he designs is laughable, we play war "games" your forgetting that important fact. We are not actually going to pick up a sabre, aim a rifle at each other. If you do not like a particular way someone designs a rule system or you feel he is wrong in his design big deal? who cares, if you don't like it get over it and move on to something you do like or agree with.

You are not going to tell me that what a rules designer designs is going to be VERY different from what happens on a real battlefield because the very act of rolling dice while firing off a grand battery of 80 canons on a tabletop is NOTHING like actually being a battery commander and screaming out to your gunners of your guns to fire!! We play games, we pretend and it is a past time to enjoy and play in a way that is fun for you and your mates, and nothing more.

You can try to be as realistic or as accurate as you like, some people will agree with you, some will not, big deal, play the game.

Shane wrote:
Yes, some rules systems might involve placing in "stop" rules as you say but I don't think that is true for all sets. I avoid stop-like inhibiting rules and prefer to disadvantage or more to the point have the player notice he loses an advantage if he tries something that does not correspond historically with what he wishes or desires to do.

You have to understand, real war does not have rules, real war is all about getting that advantage as you say, more power to the side that gains it. However, you cannot play wargames the same way, wargames or any game for that matter needs rules to control behavior, sequence and design, how can you play a game without rules?

Shane:
Actually, real war does have rules. Armies spend A LOT of time inventing them, teaching them, imposing them.

Actually, the point I was trying to make, Shane, and one that is an accepted force of nature is that anyone who plays games will attempt to use any and all methods to gain advantages. Game designers accept that as a given. It rains and you try to stay dry.

And games and simulations are not about *directing* behavior, unless that is your purpose--in which case it is much easier simply to write a script for them to follow and forget the game rules. Rules don't control behavior unless there is a real punishment involved. Game rules do provide benefits and disadvantages within the context and goals of the game, but that is the game environment. Players are free to accept or reject or simply experiment with those benefits and negatives. In historical wargames the *assumption* is that those benefits and negatives have some relationship to those experienced by the historical commanders. Command radii is not one of those. I haven't seen any evidence that it is. It's sole purpose is to stop players from acting in unhistorical ways, not to portray any positives or negatives in a battlefield environment. It began as that kind of rule in the 1970s, and continues to be one today as far as I can tell.

Shane wrote:
So, CC on a wargame is necessary, without it you have chaos and players doing what ever they like, whenever they like flouting the system for what they can gain. All games designs must have limitations or barriers because it does not work without them. You might as well go pick up a real rifle and go shoot each other in the back yard if your not going to put in place, parameters, barriers, rules and stipulations in wargames.

Scotsman:
There is a big difference between a wargame having limitations and barriers that mimic real circumstances and ones that exist simply to corral player behaviors. Granted, ALL simulations have such things. The Army's laser-tag exercises in small unit tactics have umpires that limit participant actions, judge results, usually for safety, aiding the simulation or for corralling soldiers wandering out of the prescribed parameters of the simulation. BUT NO ONE suggests that the umpire's actions somehow simulates real battlefield experiences in command and control.

Shane wrote:
Lets be real here, arguing over CC rules and what is right or correct over what is wrong or unrealistic or even going so far as to ridicule a game designer for what he designs is laughable, we play war "games" your forgetting that important fact. We are not actually going to pick up a sabre, aim a rifle at each other. If you do not like a particular way someone designs a rule system or you feel he is wrong in his design big deal? who cares, if you don't like it get over it and move on to something you do like or agree with.

Scotsman:
No one has forgotten that 'important fact.' We are talking about two things: Functional game design and simulation methodology. IF the designer decides that a game mechanic, in this case command radius, mimics IN SOME WAY the dynamics of actual command process on the Napoleonic Battlefield, then there is a relationship between the two that goes beyond simple like or dislike of a particular mechanic. It is one thing to paint a picture to please yourself and quite another to say it is a historical representation of an actual Napoleonic battlefield.

IF Rocco paints a AK-47 in the hands of a Napoleonic Hussar and claims it is accurate history, it isn't simply a matter of "get over it and move on to something you do like or agree with."

Shane wrote:
You are not going to tell me that what a rules designer designs is going to be VERY different from what happens on a real battlefield because the very act of rolling dice while firing off a grand battery of 80 canons on a tabletop is NOTHING like actually being a battery commander and screaming out to your gunners of your guns to fire!! We play games, we pretend and it is a past time to enjoy and play in a way that is fun for you and your mates, and nothing more.

Scotsman:
Duh. Who said it was? If we are just pretending and there isn't any relationship between our game play and the challenges faced by Napoleonic commanders, great. Then "it is a past time to enjoy and play in a way that is fun for you and your mates, and nothing more."

IF that is the case, then we really are wasting our time discussing command radii, let alone imposing it on the poor players. Why not let them freely do what they want if it is fun and nothing more? Why are you trying to control their behavior? To what end? Fun?

If we are getting real, what exactly are we discussing here? I assumed 1. Game design, 2. History, 3. How to simulate that on a game table. All three of those topics have a great deal of research and methodology behind them [more than 50 years] which I think would apply here. If I am wrong, please let me know.

Shane wrote:
You can try to be as realistic or as accurate as you like, some people will agree with you, some will not, big deal, play the game.

Scotsman: The only effort I am making is commenting on how realistic or accurate OTHERS are claiming a particular rules mechanic to be. IF you feel comfortable about saying "some people will agree with you, some will not, big deal, play the game" when the game designer says he is 'recreating Napoleonic command' without any evidence, then you will probably be comfortable with that AK-47 in the hands of the Hussar in a 'historical painting'. It's just personal expression, after all. You like it or you don't.

But that isn't why this list exists, is it? There are many ways to portray command and control that mimic Napoleonic warfare that I won't like. Fine, I don't have to, I'll play something else. But that isn't the issue here either.

Gouvion St Mango is dead!!

Long live Teddy The Vehement Oyster !!

A command radius with INSTANT respose by lower units really screws up the napoleonic games. Except for the lowest units, why are we even discussing it? Yes, its the way a lot of people are used to playing. But how can anyone justify it, if they bother to compare how their tabletop armies are set up with historical diagrams? Does anyone have any historical references to brigades instanly reacting to the appearance of enemy troops 5 miles away and out of sight and aimed at a different friendly unit? How often are reserves a functional and real part of the tabletop army setups?

Putting in a delay for order transmission and activation solves the big problem of the 200 foot general and the inability for gamers to pull any surprises. They had delays in responding, the tabletop people should have delays in responding. I'll forget about getting the intellegnce to the division/corp level, lets start at least by delaying it getting down the chain of command. A few chits for units (real or phony) that are presently not visible also does a world of good for the tension of a wargame. It also makes people watch the flanks of units and give proper supports, rather than putting everything into the front line. It can be as simple as making a sub-unit a simple choice of continuing on with the existing order or Stoping and going into a defend mode.

How often do you see reserve battalion or brigades used in your wargames when you have Gen.200-foot with his radio? I'm bet its almost never. (I play some microarmor and we sometimes put in radio problems there to add angst to the game- Gen.200foot always has crystal clear signals!) The generals of the time (at all levels, from skirmsihers, brigades, and especially divisional level) always kept ~20% back to allow him to react to unforsee events. Shore up a broken line, push a unit up to guard a flank, exploit a success. Do you think there is something wrong with a set of Napoleonic rules where this is never done? I do.

We can come up with better mechanics and methods.

Wargame rules should represent the world like the physics engine of a video game represents physics. It should not limit the command decisions a player can attempt to make but should limit the physical actions he wishes to take.

Can a division or corps cmdr dispatch a couple battalions to act as a separate detachment? Most definitely.

Can a division or corps cmdr order a line infantry battalion to act as light cavalry? Nope.

There were basic deployment scenarios for divisions, division and corps cmdrs did vary from these but they are a basis for deployment, when a division moves onto the table it is natural for its battalions to array themselves in X way per the regulations of that army, rules can just state that this occurs magically when a deployment order is given unless the player takes the time to stipulate otherwise.

Legacy of Glory (I'm sure others do as well) has a basis for sending orders, the core of the system is based on determining when a given order will activate, it is a quick process with only a handful of possible modifiers.

Is the division you're sending orders to more then 20 minutes away? If so, it gets delayed for every 20 minute increment farther away it is beyond one.

Does the the player issuing the order have a superior vantage point from which to survey the field and make decisions? If so, this may increase the efficiency of the orders.

Are there tactical directives attached such as telling the subordinate how to handle his units? If so this will delay the order as it takes more time to organize.

Is the order generally difficult to coordinate? If so, it is delayed some more.

There are about 8 modifiers summed up by the above, toss in a die roll and the ratings of the player issuing the order and the cmdr receiving the order and boom. On turn X your orders will activate. And until then what happens you say? Whatever the formation was last told to do it will keep doing.

Those who tell me they hate LoG tend to say it reminds them of Empire and how a player must make decisions for every battalion (because there are in fact battalions on the table top).

I disagree. I think this is where the player portion of the puzzle comes in. The rules outline how you issue orders to your divisions and then your divisions advance. Not you issue orders to your divisions and then you micro manage your battalions. Players have to accept the intention of the rules, those who don't will always be driven to pettiness.

Rules that try to out think all the possible wrong things a player can do will create games with so much overhead they make Empire look like a game of jacks.

Cheers,

The Bandit

All this discussion is fascinating and everyone is expressing useful opinions. But the more I read of this thread, I can't help feeling that there are two wargame systems that have made a reasonable attempt at solving the CC probelm. They are Kriegsspiel and D&K's Napoleonic VLB. [ hastily erects armoured screen for inevitable incoming … ]

>"How often do you see reserve battalion or brigades used in your wargames when you have Gen.200-foot with his radio? I'm bet its almost never."<

A very good point. As someone has said, a commander loses control of any units that are in contact with the enemy. (Perhaps an exaggeration, but close to the truth.) Maybe this should be interpreted literally in the rules. Once a unit begins firing/receiving fire/meleeing the player cannot control it. It fights until it wins or loses, regardless of how close it is to the command stand. (There could be a die roll to try to get it to withdraw, I suppose.) If you have a judge/game-master he could take control of all units that are in contact with an enemy. (More fun for him!)