"The "Command Radius"" Topic

"tricks are for kids"

"We loves the little soldiers we does. We loves rollin the spotty shooty boxes we does. Don't need no stinkin charts, can't read anyway. Rock, paper, scissors we sez. Gotta RPS to do anything but shootz so we can doz r flavorite thing. Squash themz dead'ens wif a ball peen we does.

Lots o manolvers we has. Tuther boyz don't like to looz so many soldiers cuz it takes so long to maak em. Only can doo one game a year cuz thums shooty boxes shows too many 6s. Momma gots us a new ball peen for valeytines day, don't ya kno. Wanna play Nappyonics, sqush dem Frenchies pflat".

A simulation of the highest order!

This thread is getting too inty-leck-shual for me.

I promissed not to post till after the 400th on the premise we'd never get there. What did I know?

Where to begin?

Once again a number of posters have raised the issue of senior officers and their aides going blind, getting lost, and misunderstanding orders while calling up the myth of the 200 foot gamer. To them rules have just gotta represent all of this stuff to be realistic. The problem is none of this stuff occurred on a Napoleonic battlefield.

Let one private or one gunner write about being blinded by the smoke and suddenly wargames are simulating battlefield white-outs, with rules representing officers and their aides blindly bouncing around the battlefield like so many ping pong balls searching for the table while gamers wind up interminably rolling dice to find out if their lost aide got found. I once played a set or rules in which it took three scale hours to deliver an order to a formation less than 800 scale yards distant. If I did not make myself clear, smoke did not interfere with the conduct of the battle by senior commanders and aides knew where they were and where they were to go to deliver orders.

Verbal orders that is, as they were rarely written and typically they were drop dead simple. A good example was at Salamanca, where Wellington verbally ordered Packenham, "Edward, move on with the Thrid Division – take the heights in your front- and drive everything before you," then rode to the Fifth Division. The rest was up to Packenham. So too did almost all generals from the other nations issue like orders.

Because gamers are constantly busy moving figures many conclude senior officers must be busy issuing orders. They were not. At Aspern Essling one of Napoleon's Orderlies found Massena sitting on the ground with his back against a wall eating an apple. And I have no doubt other senior generals took a quick rest too and when not resting they were looking on or riding around having a closer look.

Which brings us to the modified CR in NBs. While CR reflects the distance orders can travel down the chain of command, within a scale time certain (30 minutes actually), it also represents presence or the flagpole effect in which things ran more efficiently when the boss was watching over and had his hand on the helm. And as this is a game having one's hand on the helm need be measured within the scale time of the turn, which is 30 minutes. The effect of presence is most especially important the Age of Romance where leaders were viewed as examples to be emulated in valor and hopefully success. And as individual senior officers were as important as the units they commanded, NBs rates them for their command radius, how they are accepted by the boys, their initiative (ability to perform when not under the flagpole) and their combat ability. Thus, command radius represents three levels of senior command, layered over the performance of individual genearls in four categories.

This brings us to another wargame design myth, unit activation which as it never occurred is solely based on a prejudicial die roll determined by the designer. Why exactly do units that have shaken out from march to combat formations have to activate? To say their prayers? Logically at Waterloo the English Guard, which was lying down was the most deactivated unit on the field. Why should they be allowed to stand up without an activation test? Goody, English Guard lying helplessly on the ground being bayonetted by the Middle Guard. Ridiculous? Of course, but so is activation of units that were already activated.

Sam is of the opinion the wargames are as he wrote merely about pushing miniatures soldiers around, rolling dice and referring to charts. I am of the opinion that while wargames cannot simulate war, properly designed they can create a world in which establishes parameters within which the gamer is given the opportunity to make like decisions to his historical counterparts. Those parameters would be things such as movement rates. the IMP for hits based on rates of fire, percentages of misfires, etc.

Years ago at Avalon Hill I was play testing a multiplayer game with the designers. One of the designers in frustration said, this game stinks, you can reduce it to a die roll.. After a pause to reflect another designer said, "Ah, but is it an educated die roll?" While I cannot speak for other rules, I would like to think and I fervantly believe the die rolls in NBs are educated.

There is simply no excuse on God's green earth for die rolls not to represent the probability of hits. While you may disagree with our assumptions, such as the percentage reductions for the third rank or the rates of misfires or the IMP for hits per round fired, we have the stats to support the percentages and the methodology is there for gamers to build in their own conclusions.

The last issue Sam raised was of the use of miniatures, to which while he appears to give little import, save as a method of seperating wargames from Ludo. Yet, the footprint of the units formed from the stands which the figures are mounted should roughly equal the footprint of the historical unit on the battlefield. They do in Napoleon's Battles.

Good gaming, no matter what rules you play.

Bob Coggins

"Game mechanics do not have to be similar to real-world routines in order to give you a satisfying make-believe of the real world. In fact, it's almost impossible to do, since there's such a huge difference between the real world and the game."

Okay, play a spaceships from Mars game and call it Napoleonics. If you are happy with that, God bless you, I am glad you are happy and playing. It wouldn't satisfy me. But, is it so wrong to have the game resemble Napoleonic warfare to a degree that satisfies an individual? I guess "Sam" doesn't think so- his way and level is the only way.

"[A mouse eats, drinks and breathes. A man eats, drinks and breathes. Therefore a mouse is the same thing as a man.]"
"What, did I miss the announcement that today was Bad Analogy Day?"

No, it is an entirely accurate similar analogy. "Sam" took 3 properties of what he says defines a wargame and presented his conclusion that any game sharing these three attributes were identical games and anyone saying different was implied to be a flaming idiot. The mouse/man analogy is just transferring that logic to a different venue to expose the intellectual content. I'm beginning to suspect that for Sam, there is only Sam's-way or scorn.

END of response. Forever.

["Sam" took 3 properties of what he says defines a wargame and presented his conclusion that any game sharing these three attributes were identical games and anyone saying different was implied to be a flaming idiot. ]

I said no such thing.

I'll never understand why this is so hard to understand. ALL historical games are based on history. And they're ALL limited by the fact that they use Miniatures, Dice, and Charts. And in the end we ALL make decisions about how we'll organize those basic design tools, based on the outcomes we want for our historical games.

It really is that simple.

I'll never understand why people think that this simple and obvious observation is some sort of Call for abandoning all attempts at making a game resemble history… or why people always throws up the same old straw-man arguments about playing with spaceships or trolls, or whatever. That's totally non-sequitur.

For some reason, no matter how many times I repeat it, people just choose to respond by beating the out of their favorite straw-men, instead.

I'll just never get it. Why is it so hard to admit or acknowledge that *everything* we do comes down to: "Roll a die or some dice… compare against the other guy's die or dice… or against a chart… maybe with a modifier." I guess because once that sinks in, it's fairly humbling, and you realize that there really isn't that much difference, in game terms, between playing a game about Orks and Trolls… and playing a game about the Boxer Rebellion.

A few careful steps backward and a healthy look-around would be a good idea. Our whole hobby is patently absurd! We're playing with little toy soldiers and making-believe that we're in a long-ago battle! Good God, we're delusional!

Why would we bother arguing that one type of delusion is more accurate than another?

That's it, I am selling all my armies and books and going out and buying a big boat !!

Seriously though, Sam is dead right, we are playing with little toy soldiers and pretending to be generals while pushing them around. Deciding what mechanic works and is realistic as against another that to some is wrong or does not capture the true essence of simulation is pathetic actually when you stop and think about it.

Shane

No. This is not Bad Analogy Day. It's State the Obvious Day … obviously!

Face it, guys, we are playing with toy soldiers.

Whose turn is it?

I think it is TheScotsman's turn to admit it…

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

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

I had no idea the Silly Rabbit played miniatures, too. I knew about the felafel stand, but now this…??

"…there really isn't that much difference, in game terms, between playing a game about Orks and Trolls… and playing a game about the Boxer Rebellion."

Playing whose rules?….

Aaaawwwhhhhh, OK Sam. if you say so!

Thats because the orks and trolls are modelled on the Boxer Rebellion!!!!!!
William

Anyone for a diceless wargame?

Why not use counters instead of miniatures?

Counters, a map, umpire control, written orders with dice (albeit for simple results such as defeat and total defeat).

Kriegsspiel anyone!!

I got a great new rules idea !!

lets set up our little soldiers like we all did when we were 5-6 years old and throw rocks at them again?

no dice,
no rulers,
no charts,
no CR's,
no Activations,
no unit rosters,
no accuracy (unless your a good shot with a rock)
no drama

just good clean fun.

hmmmmm …. there`ll be tears before tea-time!

Sam:
I agree. It's an old song, a discussion that begins and ends the same way.

You began this thread by commenting:

>>>Many, many games have some sort of "command radius" mechanic.<<<<

>>>Recently I've found myself questioning why we need these mechanics at all. I keep reading accounts of battles in which units are split up and sent all over the place, across huge battlefields, and there never seems to be any indication that it impairs their combat effectiveness in any way.<<<<<

You question the command radius rule because? Oh, yeah, reading historical accounts. Then you ask, referencing 'historical logic':

>>>>Wouldn't it be a lot simpler (and perfectly within historical logic) to say, simply, that whatever "battle" we're doing is encompassed by this table.<<<<

Then you suggest ways that would 'represent' history:

>>>>>If you want to represent the possibility of a broad outflanking move, then use a bigger table, or a smaller game-scale. Or allow the players to send units off-table – at which point you'd need some "out of command" mechanism, I suppose.<<<<

Then after 400 posts, you conclude:

>>>>I'll just never get it. Why is it so hard to admit or acknowledge that *everything* we do comes down to: "Roll a die or some dice… compare against the other guy's die or dice… or against a chart… maybe with a modifier." I guess because once that sinks in, it's fairly humbling, and you realize that there really isn't that much difference, in game terms, between playing a game about Orks and Trolls… and playing a game about the Boxer Rebellion<<<<<.

>>>>A few careful steps backward and a healthy look-around would be a good idea. Our whole hobby is patently absurd! We're playing with little toy soldiers and making-believe that we're in a long-ago battle! Good God, we're delusional!<<<<

And you finish the discussion with:

>>>>Why would we bother arguing that one type of delusion is more accurate than another? <<<<

Absurd and delusional certainly are words that come to mind.

It is something I'll never get.

You vehemently insist because our games use dice, miniatures and charts, that nothing can be simulated, as if that particular medium precludes the possibility.

von Riesswitz first used those charts, dice and miniatures to create what he felt simulated/recreated a number of important aspects of warfare for training professionals. Professionals used his designs for over a century.

They were all delusional?

The military has and is using dice, miniatures and charts to create training simulations, been doing it for decades. Same methods, same tools, lots of crossover.

They're all delusional?

Many, many simulators use computer simulations that are nothing more than electronic randomizers [dice], digital place-holders and markers [miniatures], and charts in program form. Same approach, different medium.

They're all delusional, failing to see it's really all absurd?

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that folks have been creating simulations with dice, charts and miniatures for a long time—whether you want to yourself or not?

Why do you ask such questions about game rules in reference to historical accounts when you have absolutely no belief that there is—or can be—any representational relationship between them? AND any suggestions that they could is absurd and delusional?

I don't get it.

Are we there yet?

He-za long tyme tawker, hippity-hop, dat Skotsman man, man!
Luvs ta sez dem big-e-da-big wvords, he doz. Gotz wvay too many timiz ona hiz handi-hanz, he doz.

Mees-a play "sqush dem frenchys" coz we luvs to splatz em wif mees-a ball peen hamma ona de anvil-o-deaf. Don't need no stinkin charts, coz we can't reed anyway. Rocks, paper, scizzors we sez. Alla tyme do rocks, paper, scizzors ifyn youz wonts ta do anniethings.

Mees-a wana move. Rocks, paper, scizzors. Mees-a cuver frenchys silly rocks wif mees-a paper. Whooraz, mees-a move my sold-r-boys. Bang-a-de-bang. Rolla dem spotty lil boxes. Rolla lots-a dem 6's. Whooraz, splatz dem frenchys wif mees-a ball peen ona de anvil-o-deaf. Mees-a jumps ups an downdy downs. Butts we gotta do alla genz, dem frrenchys cutz mees-a paper wif dem scizzors. @#)%$)@@, dem frrenchys rolz lats-a 6s, lordy, gona spaltz mees-a sold-r-boyz pflat.

Skotsman say no simm-a-nation. No dadda on size o mees-a ball peen, maybee mees-a anvill tu soft. @#)*&)&, Silly rabbit, we playn wif littl sold-r-boyz, ownlee thems wif weigh too many timiz ona hiz handi-hanz reely givs a schmidt. 'tis all-a ghame anywhoza. Rabbit

Connard Sage – good call. And frankly, your icon really makes the comment.

Scottsman – Agreed regarding your historical observations and the fact they should be the basis for wargaming rules.

Shane – I have been greatly confused during this thread because what I understand Command Radius to be does not seem to be how you discuss it, I *think* this is because you do not use it as a primary method of Command & Control, rather you use it as a method to estimate time delay for orders to reach a unit within a larger Command & Control system. My understand of CR comes from playing Napy's Battles. A unit is either in or out of command, in command it does whatever you want, out of command and it essentially halts unless it passes a die roll in which case it does close to whatever you want. LoG uses a combination of Command Points + Delay Estimation to determine when an order executes / activates, arguably LoG uses CR because anything within a single courier move is not penalized / delayed for distance from the commander at all while units that require multiple moves of the courier to reach them are thus delayed in receiving orders. Frankly, I see this closer to what you describe your rules being but I do not at all consider this a question of Command Radius, CR is a set radius around an officer that is essentially an
"area of effect" in my understanding. Thoughts?

Oyster – Seriously, you started this thread because you read some historical accounts that caused you to question the validity of Command Radius as a basis for wargames and then you conclude that people hacking over the historical implications of events supporting or not supporting Command Radius is off topic? You confused the heck out of me man.

Cheers,

The Bandit

So what we have here is failure to communicate?

Or perhaps an Oyster of discord?

Ah…so what now?

Remember it takes grit in the oyster to create the pearl.

Have we any pearls of wisdom yet?

"…there really isn't that much difference, in game terms, between playing a game about Orks and Trolls… and playing a game about the Boxer Rebellion."

Which is kind of why I gave up on Grande Armme.

Round about the point where I figured that the game wouldn't have been any different if I had a Pike Phalanx on a 3" x 3" base or a Napoleonic 'Brigade'

THE END.

Thank you all for a wonderful introduction to wargaming in the age of Napoleon. You've provided first class examples of what "not to do" when gaming this very interesting period for a brand new gamer. My boss, the LCol, was correct when he said I would find this place interesting.

SFC S. Danson, Ops Grp, JRTC. The new resident, "Silly Rabbit"

I've enjoyed this discussion. I think CR's work, but, of course, it depends on how they are employed. I have a preference for Command Radii which are standardized in distance regardless of leader quality and as I think commanding generals had much greater control over their units than is often suspected, I'm not a big fan of unit "activation". The assumption being that every player at a table top is equally qualified to "command & control" and they, in essence, represent the unity of command through whatever echelon they are "simulating". Regarding the Gettysburg example cited in the first post, though the Federal reinforcements were thrown in in a hodgepodge manner so to speak, I think every regimental commander knew who they were subordinate to before going into action, even if that commander was not their official commander as listed in the O.B. I think it makes a case that game systems should try and incorporate a mechanic for attachment and detachment. The Feds at Gettysburg were highly professional in that respect.

Shane:
I do owe you a response to your previous detailed post and the question about command radius game mechanics:

Concerning command radius and 'time=distance' equation.

For Corps and Army commanders, I am sure that the issue of speed in communication with each other and their commands had some importance--I am just not sure when and where, or how.
I have suggested some ideas, but that is it.

For brigade and Division commanders, I know that the time+ distance formula was not on their radar. It it just wasn't an issue with them. Part of the reason is the distances involved, 300 to 1600 yards, distances a horse could traverse several times in a twenty minute period. Part of the reason is the actual command mechanics used, which negated many of the time/distance limitations.

The command radius rules lead players, as divisional commanders, to be very concerned about how far away their units are, with the implication that if they are too far away, communication and control is lost. A Distance equals less command equation.

That simply isn't the way the Divisional leaders of both Napoleonic and ACW saw the issue of 'keeping in command.' I have never once read regulations, memoirs, or accounts at the divisional level where that command control dynamics or the commander's concerns were described in anything close to that fashion. If you have some examples, I'd be interested.

The Divisional commander's major communication and control methods were keeping the division's alignment and using the steering wheel developed for large infantry or cavalry formations. Distance simply wasn't an issue. It had been 'taken care of.'

Just one more example from the US Army's 1862 "School of the Brigade" written by a Union general officer. The divisional commander wants to order his division to do something new, even though he is in the middle of the divisional line of battle. Does he ride to each brigade? no. Does he send out messengers? no.

The regulations instructs the officer to go up to the nearest regiment and give his new, divisional command in two parts: the order, and then the command "go."

Every officer in the regiment calls out the order, then the whole brigade calls out the order, then the adjacent brigades until every officer from colonel to lieutenant in the division has called it out. Then the DC says 'go' and when that order is repeated and reaches the directing battalion/regiment, it moves out first and the division follows.

This process is far, far faster than the speed of a horse, particularly when it has been practiced over and over. I didn't make this up. That is the process presented as a primary form of communication in a brigade and division of four brigades.

As I understand it, the purpose of the command radius at the Brigade and Divisional level is to provide the player with game rules that mimic some of the restrictions and controls experienced by the actual divisional commanders. Right?

In this regard, I can confidently say a command radius simply doesn't do that. The Napoleonic officers as well as the ACW officers are pretty clear about what they saw as the command mechanics, limitations, and control options for a divisional and brigade commander.

Time=Distance or how far away their component units are doesn't even make their top ten concerns--because the size of the Division, the customs and regulations for handling command and control of a Division have made it a moot point.

ThScotsman

'Every officer in the regiment calls out the order, then the whole brigade calls out the order, then the adjacent brigades until every officer from colonel to lieutenant in the division has called it out. Then the DC says 'go' and when that order is repeated and reaches the directing battalion/regiment, it moves out first and the division follows.'

Sounds fine on a parade ground. Sounds laden with possible cockups on a battlfield with it's noise, smoke and general confusion.

K

>"I think it makes a case that game systems should try and incorporate a mechanic for attachment and detachment."<

Yep. That's why my little free rules include both.

As for activation of various units, the idea, so far as I'm concerned, is that coordinating widely separated units was almost impossible on the battlefield -- which is why concentric attacks almost never worked. Consider Lee at Gettysburg (again); he never could get all 3 of his corps attacking at the same time. In fact, the only time any 2 of them attacked simultaneously was on the 1st day, when they both attacked without (or against, in one case) orders. (OK, on day 3, parts of I and III Corps attacked together, but the operative word is "parts" -- about 2.5 divisions worth, or the equivalent of a single corps.)

Also, the divisions of Hood and McLaws from the 1st Corps achieved a pretty good coordination with Anderson's of the 3rd Corps on day 2.

If any Division followed the regulating battalion to the letter, it was probably Pickett's and we all know what happened to them.

K wrote:
Sounds fine on a parade ground. Sounds laden with possible cockups on a battlfield with it's noise, smoke and general confusion.

K:
Yeah, most things do fine on the parade ground, and most any process is ripe for cockups on the battlefield. That's what the regs said to do, that's the way they were
trained. It is the same basic process from the Napoleonic wars.
And when it failed, I am sure they had redundant systems and alternative too.

So not only are the procedures described, but it is easy to see what kinds of things could go wrong when the noise, smoke and general confusion rules. And these guys knew the kinds of things that could and did go wrong at that level and used long tried procedures to counter them.
The systems weren't perfect…

DonLowry wrote:
As for activation of various units, the idea, so far as I'm concerned, is that coordinating widely separated units was almost impossible on the battlefield -- which is why concentric attacks almost never worked. Consider Lee at Gettysburg (again); he never could get all 3 of his corps attacking at the same time. In fact, the only time any 2 of them attacked simultaneously was on the 1st day, when they both attacked without (or against, in one case) orders. (OK, on day 3, parts of I and III Corps attacked together, but the operative word is "parts" -- about 2.5 divisions worth, or the equivalent of a single corps.)

Don:
Isn't the ANV at Gettysburg kind of a bad example considering the number of new men at the Divisional and Corps jobs? [4 of 9 Divisional and 2 of 3 Corps]

If it was "almost impossible" to coordinate widely separated units on the battlefield. Gettysburg had no longer a front than say Austerlitz or 2nd Manassas, which were supposed well-coordinated battles for the French and Confederates.

What made it possible? What were the tools used to make it happen, the problems?

What's your take on this?

>>>>>So not only are the procedures described, but it is easy to see what kinds of things could go wrong when the noise, smoke and general confusion rules. And these guys knew the kinds of things that could and did go wrong at that level and used long tried procedures to counter them.
The systems weren't perfect…<<<<<

Thus the reason why rules designers introduce mechanics to show "Friction" on the battlefield. This is why I use CR's coupled with Activation Rolls, if ya don't like it then it is fine with me. I will keep using it and the guys keep enjoying the system and as far as we are concerned and several others it is realistic enough for us.

Shane

What we have had here in this thread is some people trying to discuss from different points of view and expience in gaming and historical reading, how to model command and control of the napoleonic era and translate it to the tabletop. We also have some lazy and destructive people trying hard to destroy and trivialize the validity of the attempts and discussion. Screw them. There will always be some narcisistic clowns and spammer types around. I have learned quite a bit, gained some perspective on the history and other views (some of which were uncomfortable because they changed what I thought was the best explaination), found some new sources of original material and enjoyed some of the point-counterpoint exchanges.

Shane wrote:
>>>Thus the reason why rules designers introduce mechanics to show "Friction" on the battlefield. This is why I use CR's coupled with Activation Rolls, if ya don't like it then it is fine with me. I will keep using it and the guys keep enjoying the system and as far as we are concerned and several others it is realistic enough for us.<<<<

Shane;
You asked. I am not trying to diss your game rules--I didn't even know they existed until after I stated what I thought.

I didn't say 'I didn't like your CR rules.' I said I didn't see how CRs represented even an approximation of the "circumstances, options, challenges and outcomes faced by the historical counterparts" and I offered a number of reasons from the historical accounts.

But I will repeat my conclusion in a different way:

IF the Fundamental Methods for communicating with and controlling a division didn't depend on or refer to the speed of a horse and the distance it could travel in X amount of time--what does that say about any command and communication game mechanics that do?

Simulations are artificial environments. The only thing we can simulate with the tools we enjoy playing with are an approximation of the circumstances, options, challenges and outcomes faced by the historical counterparts based on what they have told us.

All battlefields have 'friction', but that isn't some universally generic aspect of battle. Fiction on a Napoleonic battle revealed itself in unique ways historically, within unique consequences. Military men had specific methods for dealing with it that were unique to that time. Friction on the Modern battlefield or Ancient battlefield reveals itself in different ways with different consequences for a different form of war. That has to be captured in a simulation of Napoleonic warfare if modeling Friction in the game is a goal of yours.

The actual mechanics created can involve minute detail or they can abstract and black-boxed, but the historical relationships in some form have to be there to simulate anything. If there is no relationship between the history and the mechanics, you aren't simulating anything.

You say CRs are 'realistic enough' for you. What historical reality are you referencing here? That's the real question. You certainly can decide how much 'realism' you want and what kind, how it is offered in a game--a huge number of options there. Some you may like better, some I my like better.

But, we are talking about historical reality, and that is based on historical evidence. It is very specific. The rules have to have a correspondence to some revealed history. The rules have to be modeling *something* from past or present reality.

That isn't some 'like' of mine, that is simply how simulations work, and simulating something of Napoleonic warfare is your goal. And I am not suggesting some war of historical one-up-man ship here, but simply asked WHAT evidence you have for the command and control of Napoleonic divisions being controlled in the ways you say they are, and the CR rules illustrate. .

What historical evidence convinces you that Command Radii offer communication and command control mechanisms similar to those dealt with by Napoleonic Division and brigade commanders? Not everything, just something.

And CR don't have to do it all or provide what *I* think is important in command control. All it has to do is illustrate SOME aspect of the command dynamics identified by Napoleonic military men. What THEY thought was important does have some bearing here.

They talked a lot about it. I simply haven't seen ANY evidence to support the communication and command relationships offered by Command radius rules, when compared with what divisional and brigade commanders said and did in the first half of the 19th Century. I'm open. I've had my mind changed before, but I just haven't seen anything myself.

I didn't even address Activation rules, mostly because that was a separate topic.

>>>>>You asked. I am not trying to diss your game rules--I didn't even know they existed until after I stated what I thought.

I didn't say 'I didn't like your CR rules.' I said I didn't see how CRs represented even an approximation of the "circumstances, options, challenges and outcomes faced by the historical counterparts" and I offered a number of reasons from the historical accounts. <<<<<

Thescotsman,

I know you and I have already adressed the issue regarding my use of CR's and I have put that to bed. I am playing devils advocate here and defending other designers reasoning for using the mechanic is all. I can see the use of CR's in different contexts and uses even if you think they are a poor representation of Command Control. What I am saying is, just because "you" think that the use of CR's is wrong or poor simulation does not make you right, all it does is show you have an opinion. You are entiltled to your opinion but not too many here are going to drop their use simply because you think CR's is a waste of time.

Long after this thread dies a natural death and sinks to the bottom of the page and then the next those that use CR's are going to continue to do so. Your crusade against CR's, although commendable and consistant is not going to change the hobby, people will not care how right you think you are. Players are going to continue to do just what they like, you might wanna come to terms with that.

Shane

I am always amused by Shane's degeneration into the "everyone is picking on me syndrome" be that as it may what the Scotsman says is correct there is no evidence of Command radius it is absolutely artificial. Shane you need to take deep breaths when ever your feel that someone is trashing your views, rules or what ever, remember it is just some one else's opinion and surprisingly just as valid as your opinon.

I think part of the problem is those who cannot step back and look at the question from others point of view. Sam and the Scotsman are looking at the same thing but from very different perspectives, Sam I think, (not trying to put words into your mouth rather trying to understand those that come out) is looking at the "result" of mechanics to model a battle. Scotsman is looking at History and comparing it to specific mechanics of games. As some one mentioned process vs. result. All games use one to get to the other; the devil is in the details.

I must say that I am guilty of all that the Scotsman mentions, command radius in my rules is used to make sure that the gamer does not spread out his units all over a multi kilometer battlefield. I know that there is no specific aspect that would account for this in history; however, in my game the goal is to model a Napoleonic battlefield. When I look at my CR rules they do not restrict how far units are from their Divisional commander but rather the units outside of his CR cannot advance towards the enemy, they can do everything else, fire, move, etc. What this accomplishes on the table is to make gamers aware of space on the table (another reason I indicate all distances in meters in my rules so that there is one more connection between the table and history) the ability to move units far away from the commander is a decision by the gamer knowing that the unit will be at a disadvantage in combat. So he can chose to do it and some times it is necessary. But when you tie the CR in with the other mechanics for command and control, including set parameters for the units when their formation has an order, the distance that other units must be in order to count as support both to the sides and the rear, the brigade commander's distance from the units etc. All of these mechanics channel the players to use his units in what I believe is a historical manner, and thus model a Napoleonic battle.

I think the real issue here is not CR but what the result on the table is. I remember older rules that did not have any command and control aspect to them (some still do) and you would see units being intermingled and moved all over the battlefield. Now did this happen in history? In twenty some years of combat you can find examples of most events but did they happen often enough to call them common? In this instance I think not. So how do we control the player? There are two avenues to go, the first is restricting him, i.e. a fixed CR that may not be broken by the units, or restrict this by negative modifiers for units on their own. Both are valid from a modeling perspective. The fixed is an easy solution to the problem and results in a historical feel most of the time if we are looking at the big picture, the second does the same but with more work for the gamer with a more granular view of the battle.

So it is not CR that is the question but rather what process are we using to model a battlefield, are we going the game rout or the simulation rout. Both are valid models depending on what you want from your Wargames. So always we have process but the question is what is a specific mechanic modeling, is it a stand alone aspect of the game that helps model the battlefield or is it part of the process and the real goal is to have a game that looks like a duck and quacks like a duck!!!!!

As to Sam's throwing up of hands and saying we are only playing with toy soldiers then I say lets set up our figures and flip a coin 4 times. That way we are sure of a historical out come, win, lose or draw!!!!

William

lol I am very amused right now actually.

I am amazed you can get away with saying I advertise my own rules like a 2 dollar when I never said a word to provoke you in the first place. You then have the audacity to tell me I feel like I am picked on??? amazing and really rich coming from you.

Tell me William, how would you react to being likened to a 2 dolar by a fellow rules designer just for discussing your own rules system? I bet you would arc up also.

you are a joke mate.

Shane,

I would like to know your answer to the question Scottsman posed: What specific aspects of historical command & control does the CR mechanic represent and how?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit,

Not sure why you are asking this question, I have provided so many words already as to why I use CR's. Time – motion and distance. If the scotsman does not agree then that is his business. I do not use CR's like many other designers such as William for example does but they have the right to use the mechanic and declare it as a legitimate way of showing some aspect of Napoleonic war gaming. More than enough people here already have defended the concept already, including me, I have no desire to repeat myself again.

Shane

Shane,

I am repeating the Scottsman's question because last time he asked it you didn't answer. You talked about how he can agree or disagree but that doesn't make CR right or wrong. While true, this is not helpful.

Based on what he has offered as historical explanations he, and in this case I, fail to see how "Time – motion and distance" are required for command and control of units lower than a division.

He has provided alternative explanations as to how officers controlled subunits of a division and based on his historical explanation it does not appear to be affected by "Time – motion and distance".

You disagree.

Thus, he and now I, am asking for you to further explain why the explanation he gave and the conclusion we draw from it is 1. not accurate 2. superseded by some other information you may provide that supports CR as a game mechanic representative of historical doctrine and historical happenings.

"Time – motion and distance" as you previously explained it simply does not account for the historical examples and evidence he and others have offered in reply.

Fact is, at this point the conversation seems really one sided, Scottsman posts a lot of historical examples and logic and receives replies of "that's just like, your opinion man," (my best impression of Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski) and that frustrates the heck out of me. If someone wants to claim that CR works and is *historical* cool, but the burden is on them to demonstrate it to those of us who don't see it as so obvious.

Thus we are asking, please explain what specific aspects of historical command & control does the CR mechanic represent and how?

Cheers,

The Bandit

After reading all 400+ posts my understanding of the Command Radius explanation is:

Horses can go X distance in Y time.
A game turn represents Y time, thus a horse can go X distance in that time.
Draw a circle around any given officer with a diameter of X distance.
That is his command radius.

The reply (against CR) given ultimately boils down to:

Doctrine allows for communication and steering of formations without officers communicating directly (or indirectly through courier) with the lower level units.
Thus, the speed of a horse and time the horse takes to reach the lower level units (we'll define as smaller than a division or possibly a brigade) becomes inconsequential as the commander can command them without riding there and without sending a courier.
In conclusion, since a horse does not have to be sent to a lower level unit to communicate an order, the mechanics of the game should not be based on the speed of a horse.

The counter-reply (supporting CR):

Dude, did I not say that a horse travels X distance in Y time? Seriously, why are we still talking about this?

Me (in complete frustration that someone would blindly repeat themselves without addressing the criticism leveled at their argument):

Can someone answer the question? Anyone? Buller? Buller? Buller?

I'd really like someone who likes CR to explain away or directly address the counter arguments made rather than ignoring them.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit,

you are totally missing the point here, I said many posts back, my use of CR's is to do with order relay and delay based on time and motion. I do NOT use CR's for any other reason. TheSctosman himself even understands this about what I use them for.

I do NOT use CR's for herding sheep, coralling units or for any other reason, therefore I cannot answer your question at all. You need to ask those designers out there who use CR's for other purposes than I do.

Ask Willian K or Bob from NB and anyone else who can explain why they use it, all I am doing is defending their right to use it…

Shane

I will however say one thing with regards to Ney's own words on the subject of Brigade level tactics and the command control of the sub-units within.

Ney :

It will be advisable, if circumstances admit of it, to keep the columns at the distance from each other of only a half-battalion or division (two to four peloton intervals), in order to shorten the movement; and also to close the platoons to half-distances (intervals within the column) whenever the columns change their direction. By such means too great undulation would be avoided.

It is clear to me from this passage alone that keeping a tight ship and maintaining it was recommended for control.

I am not advocating the use of CR's for this and never have, I am merely pointing out that many game designers use the concept of the CR as a guide for the general in question to be able to keep control by the use of a CR. I do not like nor agree with ANY CR's for command control, especially variable length CR's like Keyser uses, I think that is rubbish.

But CR's are used as a game mechanic for showing control, if you do not like it then you can do as I do, show command and control not by the use of CR's but by the use of the actual regulations for deployment of Brigades as per the regulations found in all the armies of the period. Each regulations had set distances between formations, units and even the neighbouring brigades and so on. If you follow these stipulations as per the real thing and use it as part of the Manoeuvre rules as I do instead then there is no need for CR's to show command control.

This leads me to my point, I use CR's for order relay and delay only, so if a brigade or division or even a btln strays outside its intended regulated place inside the parent formation for any reason then the CR as I use it comes into play to show, yes that's it, Order relay and delay…due to the possible extra distance it has strayed. Does this answer your question?

Shane

Shane,

Just a few posts ago you said you were now talking about CR in general, playing devil's advocate, not talking about your own implementation. Now when I press for a specific answer you say: I've already explained my own implementation.

Which is it? I too thought that discussion of your rules was already complete in this thread, I am not bringing them up.

Regarding, "defending their (rule designers) right to use it (CR)" – that is kinda silly, one can write whatever they want, this is not a question of entitlement, it is a question of "is it good and is it historically representative." Wholly different question.

Yes, your second post makes sense, but it does not apply to my question because I am not asking about *your implementation*. I said pages ago that I did not think your use of CR was typical, I'm asking about typical, general, etc.

Your 12 AM PST post states:

"I am playing devils advocate here and defending other designers reasoning for using the mechanic is all." -Shane

Excellent, please answer my question from that stated perspective.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Regarding the quote by Marshal Ney:

Keeping battalions close to maintain control supports contact between subunits far more than it support CR as CR is typically measured from the commanding officer and Ney did not even mention commanding officers, only the relative distance between subunits.

Thus I do not see how this piece of evidences supports the use of CR.

Cheers,

The Bandit

And I will say again,

I have already said that I would not use CR's for command control BUT They, (other designers)have the right to use CR's as a game mechanic, you will have to take it up with them as to why they use it as they do. Ask them.

You seem to think that somehow the mechanic is my design and I should take responsibility for it's use? Sorry to disappoint but I merely state that they can use whatever rule they like, its "their" right to do so. I do think you are trying to argue for arguments sake now to get a reaction so I will just leave it there.

Shane

If you read "Decker" you will read a passage in his book that speaks about the comand of a division and that if the General is on one flank of the division he loses contact and control of the other. I am sure this has a great deal to do with Command Control.