"how many of us use regulating battalions in their rules?" Topic

Please could you state if these rules are part of your own rule set, or if they are applied to somebody else`s rules.

And please, if you like, any additional comments by yourself regading; ease of play, player reactions, etc.

I use rules for regulating battlions and they are a part of my own rule set.
I am already convinced that regulating battalions are the way forward for games in which battalions are the manouevre element. But I`m asking these questions of you because as well as being sure about the historical facts of troop management, we need also to be practical about their use games.

My rules don't use battalions. So, no.

Ahem, ah yes, I was hoping for comments from people who do use regulating rules, but thanks anyway don! :)

What is a regulating battalion? I don't understand the question. Most of my rules use battalion as the lowest unit.

vtsaogames: See the humongous thread about command radius -- which has transmogrified into a discussion of regulating battalions.

"What is a regulating battalion?"

"When any number of corps assemble to act together, a regulating Battalion is named, by which the others are guided in their dressing, and from which every movement has its origin. This Battalion as the Regulations term it, becomes the helm of the whole."
The Tactics of the British Army. James Cunninghame 1804.

You`ll find much more about regulating battalions on this thread:

TMP link

Mike,

Perhaps it would be better if the entire topic of regulating battalions, and the command and control philosophy it represents, on TMP be moved to this thread from the "Command Radius" thread? That way the Command Radius thread could revert back to debate, attack and defense of that game mechanic. Readers who wish to focus on that mechanic can do that there without distraction.

Anyone interested in delving more into the "Regulating Battalion" ideas could do so here; thus those who have no interest in this discussion can easily avoid it, while those who wish to dive into it in detail have a venue to do so.
I made a suggestion early in the Command Radius thread to create a thread specifically for "regulating battalion" but it died for lack of a second. Would this impede on what you wanted for this thread?

I'm just trying to decide the best place to post more on regulating battalions and since you have a new thread started… ;^)

-Ned

PS: I might add that just as vtsaogames hadn't heard of the subject, there are some on the command radius thread who learned of it on the VLB message board and then brought that to TMP, while still others are just picking up on it in the Command Radius thread. If we are all in one place, it will be easier to to have a "dedicated" TMP thread so repetition becomes less necessary and perhaps more accessible to interested parties.

I second the call for a separate thread on regulating battalions. I play with written orders (loosely based on Charge!), where such a mechanism fits in very well.

The practice is illustrated in the Dorn/Engelmann book on Frederick's battles (yes I know that's not contemporary evidence): the King himself indicating their alignment to the colour bearers of IR 26 von Meyerinck, which formed the right end of his oblique line at Leuthen. Their keeping a straight advance was essential, as all the other battalions would 'keep station' on them – as Capt. Hornblower might have said…

Trajanus posted this in the Command Radius thread:

"I keep forgetting to post this but just in case any of you are under impression that only footsloggers had to be aware of the joys of Regulation.
Cooke's US Cavalry Tactics (1862)
Has a chunk in the back of the book on how to drive a cavalry brigade – using Regulation."

As a Napoleonic period example, here's snippet from the British Rules and Regulations for the Cavalry, 1795:

"Fourth – The regiment now makes a short attack to the front, the right squadron regulating; of course the commanding Officer of it leading the line."

(If anyone wants a copy of those regs, email me at nedz@mindspring.com)

Also,

From "Lectures on the Tactics of Cavalry" by Friedrich Bismark, translated by Beamish, available at:

link

(Beamish also published a commentary on the 1827 edition 30 years later, see:

link

pgs 368-369

"It is the rule, that when no squadron is mentioned as the squadron of direction, the dressing is taken from the right, but the Commanding Officer may appoint any other squadron to direct. The Guide of the squadron of direction gets a point from the Field Officer, on which to march…"

-Ned

I'm cross posting this because Ned asked. I understand that there other game designs have used the concept, but this is my experience.

Mike's quote sums up the dynamic that would have to be represented somehow in moving battalions, brigades and divisions together:

"When any number of corps assemble to act together, a regulating Battalion is named, by which the others are guided in their dressing, and from which every movement has its origin. This Battalion as the Regulations term it, becomes the helm of the whole."
The Tactics of the British Army. James Cunninghame 1804.

I have seen/played three different methods put together by others, though I have heard of more, and I and my colleagues are working on our own—each has its attractions:

1. SIMPLE: Brigades had a regulating location, left, right, or center. It is the first stand moved and then all the rest with the terrain and other units, combat and such creating the complications. Any stands unattached by this were 'out of command' and could only be brought back into command by either the DC attaching himself to the disconnected stands, or they caught up to their brigade and reattached. This has been used with Volley and Bayonet, F&F and another ACW set with a smaller scale that I can't remember.

2. SMALL ADAPTIONS of another rule set: I have played it with both F&F and AOE and Shako where the CR is done away with entirely, but the Attached Rule is kept. The brigade has a regulating point in the front line [center, left, or right] or with the column of the brigade, on the right center or left. They used the 'breakthrough' figure with a flag to denote the location. The first 'regulating' stand is moved to where the player wants the brigade or division, if several brigades are working together, or several divisions for that matter. The entire line is then moved. IF stands are blocked from moving, or slowed because of terrain, then every stand past that point away from the regulating stand are delayed.

The player has the very same choice at this point as the contemporary commanders: You either stop the line and wait until all the stands are aligned again [each side touching the adjacent stands]. Or the commander can move ahead next turn and the remainder is on its own. IF only a partial brigade, then the ONLY things the stands could do were 1. remain where they were until an officer moved them, or attempt move in a straight line to reattach to the parent brigade each subsequent turn—and couldn't stop until it did reattach or was met by a command officer.

With this system, only brigades that were regulating brigades rolled on the F&F/AOE maneuver table. Obviously, having them in a long chain upped the odds of moving. If alone, a brigade was automatically a regulating brigade for itself—as it would be historically. The +1 was added to the regulating brigade if the divisional commander was attached.

IF the divisional commander attached himself to another regulating brigade, then they got the +1. In every case the DC was treated as attached and moved with the unit. A DC could detach and move to a unit needing to reorganize or rally, in which case, the DC didn't add it's +1 to the maneuver roll of any other brigades. No officer movement was used per se. When DCs were moved, they were simply moved from where they were to where the player wanted them to be within the division.

3.DETAILED RULE SET: This has been done by other gamers. The regulating battalion here also is formed right or left in front, which controls which way it can from a line facing the enemy from a column. The basing and formation are much as Shako. This right and left in front can be annoying. If you don't approach the enemy on the correct side, then when you face the enemy, you are inverted.

At Perryville, a Division commander raced a Union brigade into position to face the oncoming Confederates, only he hadn't bothered to see whether the brigade was right or left in front. When he commanded 'Face front', the entire brigade turned their backs to the enemy, leaving many of the officers between their own troops and the enemy. Turning around left them inverted, ass-backwards.

In these rules the Divisional commander can attach to a brigade to influence them period. Movement or combat are the two 'influences'. How much or whether it is positive is rolled for. Negative possibilities are highest in combat, but generally low. Again, brigades are in command if aligned and out of command if not. If different brigades have different lines of advances or different objectives, then they are separate commands.

SO WHAT?
That is the question. These kind of rules not only mimic the actual movement mechanics of brigades, division and corps, but they also illustrate the actual problems when the system goes south. A line that has its alignment broken by combat or terrain or just command errors, becomes partially immobile, partially out of command. Without all the 'chance' problems that might slow a brigade or keep it from operating, the system naturally provides that. A division attempting to advance will find they can't go at full speed because part of their line has become unhinged.

Artillery can now slow an advance by simply slowing one brigade—or break the advance up with a 'disorder' when the DC decides to race ahead anyway, like Hood at Gettysburg.
When a division is engaged, brigades will retreat and advance, lose their alignment, basically rendering the division immobile. After an engagement, a player/commander will have to take time to reorganize his division before it can move as a division on a new objective. When the wheels come off, the 'out of command' troops have as their #1 priority: get back into command, which is again, the real choice seen on the battlefield and in the regulations.
And when the wheels come off, the DC [player] is faced with the similar decisions for his division and where to spend his time [as basic tasks, not distances] as the historical generals. It is easy to find historical accounts discussing the same issues and generals working on the same problems in battle.

These aren't the only ways to represent this, or even "the best" ways. They are functional models of what they are supposed to represent. I can tell you what I'm personally working on if you are interested.

Thanks, Scotsman! I think this will be easier than just referring new people to the Command Radius thread and hoping that they can find what they need among 700 posts. And if we need to copy a particular posting from that thread and stick it in this thread to clarify something for background purposes we will be able to stay on topic easier… I hope!

Agreed.

A very interesting topic to which I had not given much thought, even though I spent 20 years in the US Army and was exposed to the concept and utilization, if not to the exact term.

I must ponder on this for future SYW, AWI, and Napoleonic games. I can see where this procedure would force us as players to actually consider how and where we wanted our commands to move rather than just moving them helter skelter across the game board.

Jim

I have been using national doctrine and evidence via recorded documents (manuals) for all of my games using my system for the past 20 odd years. Meaning that if you are a Prussian player you MUST set up and move your Brigades according to the regulations of the Prussian army of the time. Same goes with every other nation and the formations they used. It is as simple as that, each nation must conform to the regulations for formation set up, spacing, distances and so on between each unit within that formation. Maintaining deployment distances is a must and the very act of moving the figures is controlled by first moving a single unit in the front line to which all others moved thereafter are moved in sequence to conform with the first unit's move.

I never used the term Regulatory Btln as such but expressed the importance to all the players that all of the above is important and relevant in order to conform to the doctrines of the armies they were using. Having so many new players I, and a couple of the older players felt it imperative to teach these newer players correct manoeuvring of their forces right from the start and to be precise with their movements. Drilling this into them would make our job easier as the battles went on with regards to rules mechanics and battlefield deployment in battle.

I think, as younger players maybe 20 or more years ago most of us would not have really understood proper deployments and formations as per the manuals that we now understand being older. Back in the early days of war gaming these drill manuals and regulations were not readily available to players and so most of us would have been more at home using our btlns as racing cars or zippy btlns as said previously. Now that there is an abundance of information of the subject and the mere fact that it is being highlighted here and on other threads right now is helping those that still do not understand that there is a deployment array one should (must) follow or their games will continue to be fantasy in design and aspect.

As for larger scale Divisional games you do not have to bother with deployment set up, the bases are not designed to do that so instead the blocks are meant to represent this without actually showing it, this is fine too and factored into those systems with regards to rules mechanics for the actual fighting combat rules and so on.

Shane

Jim wrote:

"A very interesting topic to which I had not given much thought, even though I spent 20 years in the US Army and was exposed to the concept and utilization, if not to the exact term."

I was not in the military, but it took a couple of career military men to get me to understand the concept and its implications for Napoleonic wargaming, so it is not surprising that this struck a chord with you. I had learned much of my ideas about Napoleonic military history through wargaming, even though I hadn't realized it.

Forty years ago I began reading everything in English I could about the era, but the depth and detail (especially in tactical matters which is what most gamers I knew were interested in the most), that was available then was nothing compared to today.

Books like Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon and Esposito and Elting's Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars were inspiring but were fairly general about details I was looking for. Quimby's 1957 book had details but they didn't seem to match the wargames very much. In other words, where there gaps in the books, I was left to try to connect the knowledge I did have and bridge the gaps. The prism through which I was viewing these things, though I didn't realize it, was wargaming. The organization of the figures on stands, the rules I used, the uniforms, etc etc became my "vision" of how things worked.

Naturally, whenever I came across a "new" piece of historical data I would modify rules and try to adapt it into the system, but sometimes this meant putting a square peg into a round hole. Furthermore, each change necessitated another change to make up for unintended consequences. My own rules were published in 1981, (I thought them very practical), and I could justify every game mechanic based upon my interpretation of historical reading I had done.

However, that interpretation was colored by my wargaming experience (and therefore expectations). For example, if Ney was a "good" commander prior to 1812, but a "bad" commander at Waterloo, then I assumed he needed to be "rated" in a wargaming way differently, because in wargames the main use for generals seemed to be to add a +1 or a -1 to charges, movement, or morale etc etc.

But I always had nagging doubts as to whether or not I really knew what was happening. I had read that Ney had conducted a brilliant retreat in the face of the enemy in Spain. Yet in the Waterloo campaign he is painted in a very poor light. I assumed he was a rough "soldier" who wasn't overly intelligent or knowledgeable about his profession, just inspirational.

(You can imagine my surprise then at seeing Ney's written commentaries on French tactics and instructions to his troops. He comes across as a real pro, who knows and can communicate how to use troops – this was cognitive dissonance for me!).

My relationship with George Jeffrey in the '80's was an eye-opener for me. Though I was taken with his VLB system, that was just part of what we discussed. He had been career military and his ideas on the chain of command in the military and especially the Napoleonic military, how command and control were separate functions, how generals fit into the picture and how in the big battles they were dealing with large formations and the commander in chief's plan, gave me a new prism through which to view the subject. His time and motion examination of what it took to perform large scale evolutions and the delays that were needed to make things happen was also new to me. George did describe regulating units, but I missed much of the significance of them at the time.

On the VLB forum I "met" Art Pendragon, another career military man, who has an expert knowledge of period drill and regulations, and he really clarified the "regulating battalion" issue. With my "Jeffrey prism" and my "Art" specialized descriptions, I could see the implications of "regulating battalions" and,more importantly, the system of generalship they represent which could help me understand some of those historical quandaries I found myself in after reading an historical account that didn't seem to be practical or simple enough to use in a game.

In the case of Marshal Ney, for example, perhaps he was expert not just in minor tactics, but also in the evolutions of brigades and divisions because he knew how to use the regulations effectively in actual battle and could retreat brilliantly commanding a corps or a division across a plain in Spain. His expertise was in an area or at a level my old games never even knew about, and which was only generally described in the books I had read. In 1813 and 1815 he was perhaps not so expert at handling whole armies or wings. But in any case, now that I knew how higher evolutions worked, I could recognize better some decisions and actions that took place in the books I read which had previously puzzled me.

I am not claiming to be an "expert" now, (or even assuming that I am totally correct in my interpretation today), but I think this command and control approach and the historical examination of regulating battalions and the mechanics of the handling larger formations holds much promise. It does not mean that memorizing drill books bring enlightenment; only that the "standard operating procedures" (and also Shane's "national doctrines") they represent give us a better understanding of how things worked.

If a previous incorrect historical understanding can be improved or replaced by a new understanding of what happened through a partnership between historical research and some military experience, I think the chances would improve that game mechanics could be devised to represent the era more accurately…or, at least, help me understand Marshal Ney a little better. :^)

You blokes need to get out a bit more..I thought I could empty a room..

I primarily come here to learn, and when this exceptional issue surfaces the discussion is condemned. If you are offended do not read this. The Command radius topic is the most important I have read in years of visiting TMP, let it grow to 800.

I think in linear warfare this regulatin battalion is a must – otherwise, how can you move a line of let us say 10 battalions.

In small you will find this in a battalion or even a company / peloton, where one dresses to a fixed flank, usually the place where the company commander is placed, and that all companies usually dress to the colour, or center.

We are working on a set of rules (no title yet) where my force is a small Division of;

4 Regiments each of 2 btlns, with 6 companies, each company on a 40mm x 20mm base with eight figures per base.

The cavalry for cavalry v cavalry actions has 5 or 6 figures on a base with four bases per regiment.

All above can be doubled up to half the force but increase the btln size.

This is so we can play the smaller sections of the large battles i.e. the La Haye Sainte farm, Papelotte village etc;

Is that what your after MichaelCollinshimself???

Ned…

Your influences seem to be the same as mine… in the mid eighties (IIRC), George Jeffrey`s was the second Napoleonic book I bought … so a bit of a shock therefore, going to my local wargames club and finding that no one manouevred their units in the ways that he had described!
And of course, there`s Art!

Anyhow, as you may know, I`m already sold on the idea of incorporating rules for regulating battalions in games for the periods we are discussing here (and I have cross-posted this for the C18 & C19th), but I wanted to get to the practicalities of peoples` experience in putting this down on the games table.
I think we have had sufficient evidence from the Napoleonic period already that regulating battalions were the basis of "command/control" and of manouevre. However, I do think that more evidence may be useful to us if we can make it applicable in forming, or justifying our own rules for manoeuvring our toy soldiers in their battalions.
Hmmm, yes Cardinal,… maybe I should get out more… but I`m getting older and it takes a couple of days for me to recover from a mid-week night out!

Thanks for nudging Bill Haggart to cross-post.

Even if we do not get a massive response here, it should be noted that although rules for regulating battalions are "new" to gamers, they need not necessarily be more complex than any alternative method of "command/control".

Mike.

bgbboogie,

"4 Regiments each of 2 btlns, with 6 companies, each company on a 40mm x 20mm base with eight figures per base.

The cavalry for cavalry v cavalry actions has 5 or 6 figures on a base with four bases per regiment."

These are rules for the internal organisations of your wargames units, but how will you organise and manoeuvre them as a whole on the battlefield and in your games?
This is the subject of discussion.

Shane,

This is a small but hopefully a practical point for writing rules on the subject.
Just to say, that I saw your comment about where regulating rules should appear in one`s sequence of play and having read your rules, I think I understand why you would place them where you say you might do; in the "movement orders phase".
Actually I took them out of the main part of my rules and placed them in the introduction.
Now, haha! I did this because I wasn`t quite sure where to place them myself! Being a means of "command and control" one might think that the rules should fall under the heading of what generals do, but it is essentially the movement of units within commands after orders have been given to them…
But on the other hand, I thought it important to introduce new players to the subject and to make this introduction early on along with other basics like national "doctrines" or "systems" and battle array for infantry divisions.

Mike.

Mike,

I totally agree, I also want players to understand the relationship between Orders and movement parameters so I decided to discuss it like I said, in the movement phase of the game. But, like yourself, it is also important to let players know the relationship between General figures, Orders, Activations and the resulting Movement Rules so discussing it early on like you say in a good move indeed.

p.s. That is why in my system I have an entire section devoted to the SIX main Orders a player can give to his formations via General figure down the chain of Command and the Command Control parameters I put in place for each of those orders separately. The player must work within those parameters to be able to legally carry out those orders via Movement and the nationalistic and mechanical limitations imposed.

Shane

Shane,
Yes, I think its because your rules are more centred on the activation of order and the subsequent movement (the result), rather than separating orders from movement (the processes).
However, for battalion level games, I think it is quite possible to employ very similar methods to the historical processes without losing valuable game time, whereas until now I think that gamers may have mistakenly believed that CR methods have represented some kind of time- and labour-saving device.

Mike.

"I never used the term Regulatory Btln as such but expressed the importance to all the players that all of the above is important and relevant in order to conform to the doctrines of the armies they were using."

This is exactly the approach I use. The amount of detail this involves and the mechanics of how you do it will vary with what each elements represents, ground scale, whether you use rulers or grids etc. The methods used in 1870 and Warring Empires are eminently practical though.

What you don't want is a free-for-all with battalions bumbling around doing their own thing.

This does sometimes mean that tactically certain armies are slightly doomed (1866 Austrian infantry battalions vs needleguns), but that is life. At least the Austrians have got lots of good rifled artillery!

Mike, I agree, several systems seem to do this, point taken.

Martin,

excellent point, some armies are doomed until they reform, but this is why they were forced to reform. so if you plan to use an army before its reform then you have to suffer the disadvantages that occur due to lagging behind in doctrine, training and or technology…

Shane

Martin,

re. 1870-71: and "…battalions bumbling around doing their own thing."
I have read that something of this happened to Prussian infantry in the Franco-Prussian War… in an essay dated 1891, in "The Science of War" by G.F.R. Henderson.
Something to do with control being lost as the tactics devolved to small manouevre columns and with disjointed firing lines in open order and the impetuousness of the local initiatives of unit commanders.

Mike.

For myself the game would begin with the basic orders written down, so & so take X. 123rd Ligne will advance in double column front and take X.
Form this type of order each btln has a Colonel on a horse, he then is communicated to by courier from brigade HQ (he has four Aides). In his turn he comuicates with Division HQ (he has six Aides). Each Aide is possibly a casualty and the message may be lost lost, the start of disorder and chaos maybe.

As a btln CO you cannot normally react to events without a change of orders, other than form square when cavalry is in your immediate area. Each change that is required is either a dice against the CO's ability or a clarification of orders from Brigade (Remember the smallestr command unit is the Brigade HQ).

We hope to see in a game btlns advance in either, line, double companny column, company columns, Regimental or Brigade columns, or if your brave a divisional column.

We also hope to see btlns form square too late, have grenadiers lead attacks, have the lights out as skirmishers (2 to a base, 4 bases = the company)we hope to factor in as much as we can without losing playability.

hope that helps.

Martin

Yes, it helps a little Martin,

What you have described in your system is how each unit (or indeed sub-units; light companies maybe?) within a brigade or division may be given individual missions… and this is quite feasible in assaults on positions, villages or to reinforce such places.
But the notion of the "regulation" of regulating batalions is to keep a command together whilst manouevring, or whilst formed in a "line of battle". If in line of battle these units need to act in a concerted, unified fashion if they are not to find themselves isolated, or flanked and defeated in detail by an enemy`s line of battle that is unified.
Rules for regulating battalions determine how battalions within commands are kept together.

Mike.

Mike –

I like the system in your rules and I use a similar one in mine. Regulating battalions are a crucial piece of our command and control mechanisms as they are in yours.
The goal of our system, and the aspect I attempt to simulate with it, is to give advantages to those armies that had better/larger staffs, better leaders or other advantages (artillery officers, etc) that enable these armies to react more efficiently to situation changes during the game. For most armies, as long as their troops are not engaged or taking fire, things tend to go more or less as planned. However, once in combat, those armies with lees effective/efficient staffs find themselves at a disadvantage when opposed by armies with better leaders and staff work. We are generally please with how it works and it also conforms to my prime directive with respect to the rules – all the charts needed to play must fit on the front and back of a single sheet of paper in a readable font.

Oh yes, I would be remiss if I did not give credit where due to the VLBers generally, and Art Pendragon specifically. I really wish someone had not taken that cheap shot at him, he might still come around.

Yes Tom,

Agreed; I have been helped many times by VLB group members.

And Art has a method of his own for regulating battalions and the movement of the units in commands. I mention it now just in case he does not make a return!

Mike.

The rules that I am 'working on' are for battalion unit level (company bases) where at most a player will have 3 or 4 battalions. It seems, therefore, to be the perfect scale to implement regulating battalion rules on.

I can't yet justify it though.

What I always had was a rule that said that each time that your command did more than one thing in a turn (ie some move quickly while some move slowly) your brigade commander gains command chaos for every additional different order. This was designed to encourage the units to all do the same thing.

So I'm not sure if I have to replace that concept with regulating battalions or put regulating battalions somehow into the mechanic OR if I'm already getting the effect of regulating battalions through the back door.

EDIT: I could do something as simple as getting rid of the 'more than one thing' causing command chaos and instead state that the first unit that you move each turn must be your regulating battalion. Command chaos then comes for each unit that does something different than that unit.

Malcolm,
First and foremost, the actions of the battalions in your regiments/brigades would follow the lead of the regulating battalion. They would do this if following the regulating battalion in column, or if they were in line of battle.
If one of them moves "out of line", the rest, behind them, or towards the opposite flank to the regulating battalion if in line of battle will lose their connection with the rest of the command and its general.
If you replace what you have with the concept of regulating battalions I do not think that you will need "command chaos" (points?) as a punishment to players who break up their commands. Besides there may be a good reason for doing this: if for instance the command were to take up several defensive positions?
Mike.

Malcolm,
Re. your edit:
Yes, then you would be designating and using a regulating battalion.
But what would be the effect of the "command chaos" on the unit?
Mike.

If one recalls what first brought outrage against command radius rules, it was the notion that a unit getting outside this radius should not automatically have to halt and stare off into space until it got back inside its magical range to commander.

As such, turning units into things that were unable to act because they had broken connection with their regulating battalion would be just as ridiculous. No, I think the solution has to be in rewarding players that adopt the regulating battalion system rather than crippling them if they do not.

EDIT: Command chaos doesn't affect the unit. It affects the commander and the whole of the command for various things. If ever, for example, the command chaos reaches 6 then the player can do nothing but do one type of action in a turn with all of his units. It represents how coordinated the brigade organization is.

EDIT2: My original rules added command chaos for each type of command that was done different from the regulating unit. Now I would add one command chaos for each unit that did not copy the regulating battalion. Commanders could spend a turn changing which unit is their regulating battalion.

BD:

Perhaps this discussion could/should be moved to the regulating thread. [Which I have just done.]

Anderson requested Wilcox to inform him of the move because Anderson didn't know when McLaws would move, and the actual wait time was several hours before Barksdale moved.

You are right though, Anderson didn't have to be with Wilcox, because Wilcox already had his direction and orders. The regulating process is why all four brigades of Anderson's division could all move within 30 minutes.

And the regulating brigade mechanic is hardly a moot point for games like F&F because regardless of appearances the actual game mechanics and complications are different and far more representative of what actually happened.

Here I am speaking of the regulating game mechanics I have played using the F&F system as a basis.

Sorry Malcolm, I was confused there as to whether the unit, or the command would be in "chaos" or maybe both would be?

Edit2… Yes, maybe it`ll be worthwhile testing this to see if it will work on table in the ways that you might expect it to.

this cannot be a good thing?

Malcom wrote:
>>>>If one recalls what first brought outrage against command radius rules, it was the notion that a unit getting outside this radius should not automatically have to halt and stare off into space until it got back inside its magical range to commander.<<<<<<

Malcom:
Well, I for one wasn't outraged, I simply stated that for division level command, it just didn't work that way. The distance from a divisional commander per se wasn't the determiner of being 'in' or 'out' of command, however you want to define that and regardless of what penalties are imposed for being 'out'.

>>>As such, turning units into things that were unable to act because they had broken connection with their regulating battalion would be just as ridiculous.<<<<

Possibly. If the 2nd day at Gettysburg is any model for that, brigades and regiments that were 'disconnected' to use the ACW term, responded in only a few ways if they weren't actually under attack:

1. They immediately worked to reconnect, as their top priority.
2. Or they waited.

Here, waiting could be
A. They were halted until the rest of the line caught up. This happened most often with the end regiments of a brigade.
B. The brigade or division simply stopped moving forward because their flank was exposed by the failure of the next unit to conform on their flank. Hood, Kershaw and several other brigade and regimental commanders simply stopped until the problem was resolved.
C. Depending on circumstances, usually because they were already engaged, the units that were separated continued on, trying to carry out the orders without reference or coordination with the parent unit.

Now, the reasons why units became disconnected are just as easy to categorize:

A. Terrain or lost LOS caused them to disconnect
B. Combat caused the disconnect.
C. Command errors caused the disconnect

>>>No, I think the solution has to be in rewarding players that adopt the regulating battalion system rather than crippling them if they do not.<<<

Personally, I find thinking in terms of 'rewarding' and 'penalizing' players can derail thinking about what the games are supposed to do. They aren't designed as rewards and penalties, they are designed as environments where decisions have consequences, which can be rewarding or not, depending on the circumstances.

There were advantages to the regulating system, or military men would have abandoned them. All you have to do is make sure the game mechanics provide them. There were natural consequences on the battlefield in not using the system, or if the system broke down. If the simulation does that, it's done it's job.

>>>EDIT: Command chaos doesn't affect the unit. It affects the commander and the whole of the command for various things. If ever, for example, the command chaos reaches 6 then the player can do nothing but do one type of action in a turn with all of his units. It represents how coordinated the brigade organization is.<<<<

So there would be a command index that can go up or down?
I would imagine that players could affect this positively and negatively? What is becoming 'chaotic'?

>>>EDIT2: My original rules added command chaos for each type of command that was done different from the regulating unit. Now I would add one command chaos for each unit that did not copy the regulating battalion. Commanders could spend a turn changing which unit is their regulating battalion.<<<<

That could work, but then there is one Brigade failing to regulate on another. Or would that be a Divisional level of command chaos?

Obviously this all would depend on what regulating units were chosen at the brigade and divisional levels--or even corps.

So there would be a command index that can go up or down?
I would imagine that players could affect this positively and negatively? What is becoming 'chaotic'?

It represents the brigade commander losing control of the formation, the battalion commanders getting out of sync and a breakdown in teamwork or cohesion. It can be lowered by a commander taking his turn to 'sort himself out'. It puts a concrete number on the level of crisis over the brigade.

That could work, but then there is one Brigade failing to regulate on another. Or would that be a Divisional level of command chaos?

Actually it neatly solves a problem that I had in multi-player games. I didn't know how to do turn sequences.

So with this, at start, one player's force on each side would be determined to be the regulating brigade. It would move first each turn. When the first brigade gives commands to its regulating battalion, the second brigade can then choose to copy with its regulating battalion. If it does not then it waits until the whole of the 1st brigade is done moving and then move its own regulating battalion (and all following battalions) but automatically gains 1 command chaos for doing so.

Mike wrote:
"… the notion of the "regulation" of regulating batalions is to keep a command together whilst manouevring, or whilst formed in a "line of battle". If in line of battle these units need to act in a concerted, unified fashion if they are not to find themselves isolated, or flanked and defeated in detail by an enemy`s line of battle that is unified."

If a set of rules is designed so that every battalion and its commander are at their best when autonomous and most effective when used individually, then it would be a game disadvantage to use regulating mechanisms. Historically, multibattalion formations used regulating mechanisms. So either the historical commanders were stupid, or there was a worthwhile historical advantage to using regulating battalions that many game designs don't realize they are missing.

Just saying it is a "command and control" advantage isn't helpful unless that term can be represented concretely in tabletop terms.I think "regulating battalions" are actually a means and not an end in themselves. They have implications for other sections of a game's rules.

Bill –

Your point about 'pluses and minuses' vice consequences is a good one. I don't prohibit RC battalions, if someone wants to maneuver his units that way, he can. However, as you say, there are consequences…

Ned – I agree with you in that the use of regulating battalions is a means. How a designer chooses to incorporate them or not should be driven by what he is trying to simulate. I have toyed around with some pretty complex ideas (game mechanics-wise anyway) about using regulating battalions, etc.. In the end, most of these ideas get set aside because they diverge from the simulation and design goals I am trying to achieve. Trying to strike a balance that will make the grognards happy as well as being accessible to those who don't play the period often has proven to be more difficult than I imagined when I started revising our rules.

Or just bored to tears with this thread…?

"Just saying it is a "command and control" advantage isn't helpful unless that term can be represented concretely in tabletop terms.I think "regulating battalions" are actually a means and not an end in themselves. They have implications for other sections of a game's rules."

Would it perhaps make more sense to look at happens when the regulating mechanism breaks down and write rules to describe what a unit in such a condition can or cannot do?

Would it perhaps make more sense to look at happens when the regulating mechanism breaks down and write rules to describe what a unit in such a condition can or cannot do?

That gets down to determining the level of control. Afterall, a battalion commander can do anything he likes at that point. What you are really looking for is an artificial intelligence system to kick in when a unit is no longer following orders. You can map out a simple AI that forces the unit to stop, move toward its regulating unit, or whichever, and those might all reflect S.O.P., but they shouldn't really be hoping to describe what that battalion commander can do.

There are some areas I think are related to the regulating battalion tool that could be explored in a set of Napoleonic rules.

One is "Situational Awareness" – how quickly will a general recognize, process what he sees or learns about, and then react to an enemy threat or to a "change of situation"? How does this relate to the length of a game "turn"?

In games where battalions are autonomous, or where a player or a general moves or orders all units individually, players tend to assume that those individual units or generals are individually responsible and capable of seeing threats on their own. Rules are then written giving them more-or-less instant response on their behalf by the player.

However, if those battalions are part of a whole that is being led by a regulating formation, or if a brigadier or a division commander must focus much of his attention much of the time when moving or performing evolutions, ON HIS OWN TROOPS, he will be less likely to immediately see enemy threats or react to them immediately if he is busy making sure no "internal threats" aren't happening due to terrain or visibility or other factors.

In addition, since these generals were paying a lot of attention to their own commands, they were more likely to leave it to other generals to cover their flanks or to their superior officers to deal with potential enemy threats.

Assessing the importance of this factor to a set of rules depends on the detail or level of the rules one wishes to use. It also makes a difference if we are assuming the general is learning of threats from personal observation or by reports from others.

This is more than just saying a general gets a +1 for recognizing threats, since it also goes to whether or not he is in the "right" location on the field.If the general "left his post" it will take longer for him to hear about external problems.

If one likes "rating" commanders it could be that if two generals are in the "right" place, one could be given a situational awareness bonus over a dumber general, but if he leaves his post to deal with an individual unit somewhere, he loses that advantage. In such a case the poorer commander is also still in the right place to direct his own troops, which means he may be able to prevent internal disruption in his command better than the other "better" general can in his own formation.

This would be another reaction-delay factor to be considered. Of course, all of these points I mention depend upon the level or scales one is using in a game.

"Something to do with control being lost as the tactics devolved to small manouevre columns and with disjointed firing lines in open order and the impetuousness of the local initiatives of unit commanders. "

This was a constant theme of later nineteenth century military theory (and practice) – the tension between loss of control caused by dispersed tactics (but reduction in casualties) vs better control with mass tactics but heavier (sometimes catastrophically heavier) losses. Eventually rapid fire rifled weapons rendered the debate pointless and new methods were required.

Mike S.

>>>I think "regulating battalions" are actually a means and not an end in themselves<<<

Well, yes and no! :o)

The ‘end' is to deliver the Brigade (or Division) onto the Mission Objective. Be that a position, or into combat with an enemy force.

The ‘means' is the positional alignment on the Regulating unit.

All movement is conducted on Regulating principals but not all movement ends in combat.

Regulating can break down enroute' as it were, but I would argue that to a greater or lesser extent it will generally break down in combat, as the component units are more focused on survival and the general kill or be killed.

The difficulty is representing occasions when only part of the Brigade is in combat. I would suggest when all of it is, Regulation to all intent and purpose ceases.

"Mike S.

>>>I think "regulating battalions" are actually a means and not an end in themselves<<<"

Hey, I didn't say that, it was NedZed!