"Radios in Wargames" Topic

I'm interested in how folks and various rules out there represent use of radios. In this topic, TMP link , Don Lowry's comment of "Try playing a game in which you as the overall commander cannot give orders directly to most of your tanks." piqued my interest.

Thanks in advance.
--
Tim

I cant stand the idea of not controlling my troops. I really dont buy into any historical accuracy claim on that one. It makes for absurdly chaotic game. The concept as many want to see it reminds me of those old football games with the tin field and the magnetic players shaking all over. All the fog of war and chaos on the battlefield remarks don't hold much water with with me in this.

Bruce Quarrie's rules in the back of his Armoured wargaming book did a good job with this. You had multiple nets and you could only use one at a time. It allowed for a fog of war, yet left you in command, which in my mind was the reason to play in the first place.

From what I can see most rules assume lots of radios everywhere. It's the occasional rule representing the lack of radios (FoW's Hen and Chicks for example) that seem to inhabit rules.

the problem is the men on the ground took personal initiative ALL the time. In fact, it almost seems exception rather than rule where orders were carried out exactly as intended.

Most rules that attempt to model command/control however tend to make units follow orders slavishly, or alternatively nothing gets done whatsoever.

In reality, soldiers will do what they think is the best thing to do. Whether that corresponds to what battalion needs them to do, is another question of course

I don't believe many will make decisions without any consent from authority. Why would you want to make yourself responsible for such a thing? Its one thing to be put in command because of causalities and then continue on a mission. Its another just to venture out due to lack of them. The Soviets would not in anyway. Such initiative was discouraged though extreme measures. IN any army striking out without the knowledge of Higher echelons would leave you isolated and committing action without coordination or cooperation of friendly's. If this was a standard there would be no direction or cohesion to any unit or army.

Communication is well thought out. The Signal Corps were pretty good. There really is no hisotical account of major problems with it. It happens, men get lost hit the wrong hill, artillery fire is too short and so on. But to play a game where the movements of your subordinates are arbitrary and out of control is like watching a badly directed movie. Why would that be enjoyable? Quarrie is pretty accomplished Wargamer. I think his use of simulating the possibility of mis-communication without taking it to an extreme of loss of command is a good and more on par with descriptions of actions from World War Two.

In FEBA+ we operate a net system. To pass a message may permit a direct contact, but more likely requires a communication from unit to command, and command to next unit.

For each you need to roll anything but a 1 on a d6. It's a simplified system whereby each unit rolls to see if it is 'on net', permitted a message to be passed. Most communications get through just fine, but it's amazing just how often one unit in the chain will fail just when you really need to get a message through. You'll find the sending unit is off, then they are on but the receiving unit goes off… then it comes down to sensible players to act with the information available to that unit, not what they can see as overall God.

Supergrover wrote:

I don't believe many will make decisions without any consent from authority. Why would you want to make yourself responsible for such a thing?

Oooh, I dunno -- maybe because they've been trained in Auftragstaktitk/mission command, and know it's the right thing to do if you want to win. Maybe because you like taking on responsibility anyway -- as the Germans so elegantly put it, you have Verantwortungsfreude (the principal quality they looked for and sought to develop in junior leaders).

Its one thing to be put in command because of causalities and then continue on a mission. Its another just to venture out due to lack of them.

And it's another thing again to use your initiaitive in pursuit of the commander's intent, which is what NATO command doctrine encourages.

Communication is well thought out. The Signal Corps were pretty good. There really is no hisotical account of major problems with it.

Hilarious stuff, well up to the usual standard. You really ought to try reading some books about modern warfare some time, I think you'd be highly surprised.

All the best,

John.

Units DO NOT run off alone! These game mechanisms are always geared towards a want of total chaos. show us the total fragmentation of a unit because they all refused orders or received none due to isolation took it all upon themselves to run off and act on initiative. I am in full confidence I am all to knowledgeable about this I didn't need any books to figure it out.

This is about game mechanic . your replies were waaayy off base.

Its also not about conducting an order or seizing opportunity while carrying out an order. Its about the idea of being out of command of large portions of your force and it being some runaway. Which is regardless of "reading a book" not realistic in the SLIGHTEST

For each you need to roll anything but a 1 on a d6. It's a simplified system whereby each unit rolls to see if it is 'on net', permitted a message to be passed. Most communications get through just fine, but it's amazing just how often one unit in the chain will fail just when you really need to get a message through. You'll find the sending unit is off, then they are on but the receiving unit goes off… then it comes down to sensible players to act with the information available to that unit, not what they can see as overall God.

This is similar to Quarries quite a bit. With honorable players it works okay without a judge.

Supergrover wrote:

I am in full confidence I am all to knowledgeable about this I didn't need any books to figure it out.

Believe me, that has become all too obvious.

You'll pardon me if I decline to respond to the rest of your ill-mannered and illiterate drivelling.

Get better soon,

John.

Yeah, you decline as your pompous rants are of your own imagination and have absolutely nothing to do with any imaginary books you never read. You have to talk to me about being rude after your pompous and and obnoxious retort.

And the babbling about a few typos late a night is pathetic reach to discredit somebody due to lack of a valid argument.

No matter what initiative is taken by a unit The next echelon of command is informed of it's actions. If not the idea of a UNIT is bunk. Cohesion is necessary for any Army to function.

nice here innit.

nice here innit.

It used to be. Now one cant have one conversation without snide remarks and utter rudeness. But somehow in these guy's twisted mindset they have all the right to act like snits and are entitled to butt kissing for their lack of manners. And as with all Forums the clique get a shield from moderation to attack with impunity while the newcomer is banned for not taking his lumps. And responding in kind. Most forums roll this way. Shame.

I cant stand the idea of not controlling my troops. I really dont buy into any historical accuracy claim on that one.

It caused a bit of trouble with the Paras in Arnhem

The famous crystals thing. Yes Paratoopers are by mission isolated. And while they had communication problems(I did miss citing that exception)they did not deviate from the objective nor did they take new ones on themselves. Also they had Divisional Leadership. So in a Market Garden Scenario because they could not communicate properly but could communicate, The Allied Player loses control of units to whom? The opposing player? The Judge? Some chart telling you what your men do without any coordination? So In large scale game with all the AB under your command what should happen? They move without consent? or hold and defend from attacks?

If your gaming just Market Garden and you command all units involved? What control should you lose of your Regiments and battalions? How much do you get to command? Wheres the fun in losing a battle due to the actions of a another player or mechanic not of your control? Once they got down there and discovered the radio problem they moved to using runners and so forth. Sure a runner can not make it through. But what actions beyond their last known order would a unit take? Offensive? why? even if successful being out ahead of other units without there assistance leaves you isolated and surrounded.

This is why having something like mentioned by QRF is realism to a degree of covering something reasonably without it being rule that ruins the game. Having a mechanic were a total meltdown of command and control can occur in any situation at any time is just beyond realism. that's the fun and simplicity everybdoy is looking for??!?! It don't see fun or simplicity in that. I cant see why anybody would. I pay good money and spend valuable time to paint up minis just to get restricted from being able to push units around the board cause of a bad die roll? or some "your screwed" card draw???

maybe there are system more reasonable. But the ones if heard demanded for and used to date, rob you of the reason for playing: being in command.

Well I don't know how wargames address the issue, but assuming we're talking about Battalion level and down, communications takes at least three forms.

Radios tend to get a very bad press for WW2. They were heavy, not too reliable, and prone to atmospheric and geographic interference. It's a wonder in a way that armies perservered with them for so long! But they did, and in British/Commonwealth and US units they increased in issue throughout the war. The 1945 signals training publication for the British pays great attention to the issue of No.38 and No.18 sets to provide a means of subunits keeping in touch with Coy and Bn commanders for example in a variety of operations. Both the British and US were moving in the direction of radios routinely linking Pl commanders back to Coy commanders, which is perhaps where the emphasis on poor radio performance comes from. They have short range, didn't deal too well with adverse terrain, and they weren't being handled by dedicated signallers.

But radios weren't the only means of linking commanders. There was also line, which in manys ways was the most reliable method. It was more secure than radio as to be overheard someone needed to physically tap into the wire, and wasn't affected by having a large 'thing' in the way to block the signal. It still though had drawbacks that radio didn't. Lines were liable to be cut, either by artillery fire or something as mundane as your own vehicles running over it. While line lends itself to static situations, it's not so suited to a rapid advance. Laying cable under fire or searching along the length to find and repair breaks is also not a great way to spend the day (or night).

Finally there is the runner/messenger/orderly, whatever you wish to call him. Here the issues are time lag, vulnerability to being intercepted, or just getting lost. But when all other means have failed, simpy sending someone with a message remains an option, though no more guaranteed to work than radio or line.

British, US and German forces all used a combination of radio, line and messengers down to Battalion level, with an increasing emphasis on radio as the war went on. My familarity with the Red Army isn't as great, but general opinion seems to be they used radios for communication between Bn and Regt commanders at the lowest level. The Japanese would appear to have used them more for links between Regt and Div commanders, with the brunt of their communications being handled by messengers and line below that.

AFVs are different again, and by extentsion motorised/mechanised infantry. Likewise artillery, who developed sophisticated communications nets enabling single FOOs to call up the support of multiple Btys for shoots to meet specific threats. The argument might be that the heavier, vehicle mounted sets proved the value of radio communications over line and runner, but that the technology of the time simply couldn't build a man portable set with the same reliability, something only realised with the postwar era and advances in electronics.

Gary

The lack of radio communications would effect the ability of a commander to inform all units of a change of orders.

Line didn't do much good in France 1940 because the Commanders had different HQ but were often not in them.
Dispatch riders had to ride around trying to find them.

Pre planned attacks often did not happen

(This happened a lot during the fall of France 1940)

You cannot co-ordinate tactical moves or warn units of a enemy that may be creeping up on their blind side.

Even in recent wars soldiers have tried to use mobile phones because the radios didn't work.

Interesting and informative, Thanks Gary.

While the battlefield can be chaotic, there tends to be many whom lobby for rules that have mechanisms that can enforce extreme examples of breakdown of command as being far more common then they actually were. I know the Soviets radio abilities were very primitive compared to Germans and western Allies yet they successfully moved a enormous force with good coordination across a vast expanse. Communications are required for that. For the Soviets it was flags and hand signals, and a very centralized control that discouraged initiative heavily.

No doubt SNAFUS occurred, but it was the 20th century. Nobody was stranded at a phase line cause they didn't hear a bugle call or charged when they should have retreated.

Theres always a backup plan and Units have meetings to discuss coordination and plan for those possible snafus so they don't cause disaster. Black Tower pointed out that doesn't always work but a total meltdown, rare.

So what other things can happen. Well if a tanker happens to be on the wrong net to hear "LOOK OUT" or whatever he can wonder into trouble. As stated either a judge or honorable players can represent that without stripping total control from player.

The French were outmaneuvered and confused. They did not respond because things happen at a pace much faster then they expected. Many factors involved.

See mechnical errors to me seem like detail coming from a crowd typically strongly opposed to it. Even if one element had a breakdown, A player would still have command. And what would a unit unable to communicate do on its own? Venture out and possibly stumble into friendly fire or an enemy they would have to fight totally alone?

Out of command in past systems tend to enforce minimal or no movement and that the unit fire in defense only. I think there is a good logic to that. It also relives designers of the need to come up with complicate schemes to simulate movement of a force not under human control. The design gets more complicated for the designer cause he has to bang his head on the wall trying to figure out how to make it "simple". When the old way worked just fine.

Unfortunately wargamers do not like to play that way.

the complain about writing orders let alone having to have a whole game plan that the troops will be forced to fall back on.

Enforcing chaos is often the only way to remove the god like command of the wargamer!

The fall of France was not just about the problems of the French, it was about the co-ordination between French British and Belgian troops.

without good communications the front had often moved and troop locations changed.

Any that followed orders to the letter were isolated and captured

So they would rather not be in command? Ill pass. I surely don't want to play that way and know plenty would wouldn't either.

First losing command of troops isn't fog of war.
Second fog of war is one of many things that many want but refuse to take the easy route to get it. Then complain and demand the impossible from rules. Get a judge. It would be so much easier.

But instead the systems devolve into total randomization and further and further from depiction of history and closer to some PC game.

Many should just go to PC and be done with it.

I was waiting for the PC reference!
to quote Supergrover6888

TMP link

What could the computer not do for the player? Physically move the pieces in game or setup/cleanup..

The wargames player has far more control than the a real life commander. plus a god like view of the battlefield unsurpassed even by 20th century satellites.

A rule designer cannot assume that all players are gentlemen or that the players will have the luxury of an umpire.

First losing command of troops isn't fog of war.

This is about the ability to give orders and receive information immediately to troops. no more.

Perhaps you could give your definition of fog of war?

Gary – great post. What that really shows is that radios are just a part of overall communications. In my mind the most important thing is capturing the level of communications appropriate to the command level and relative time scale of the game.

For example in low level skirmish play, we played a platoon game set in the Ardennes last Monday. The US platoon commander had a radio. The game was representing a quick firefight. The US player wanted to know what he could call in for support. Basically we agreed he could radio his company commander for a) the company mortars or b)reinforcements and most importantly c)to provide status back to the company commander. In the short time frame of the attack, there would be little time to ask for higher level assets and in ground scale an artillery barrage would have been coming down on their own position, i.e.- the entire table.

The US player was allowed to begin radio communication in turn 2. For gaminess, I currently use an arbitrary matching an odd/even opposed roll for both sides of the communication. He was able to establish communication in turn 4. Mortars weren't going to be a good idea with the Germans on top of them. He was able to give a situation report of German armor and infantry taking the bridge and request additional reinforcements which would be important if say the GM had a sliding scale of minor to major victory conditions following the tabletop game.

I would think the easiest way to game this would be with unit activation rolls. Higher ranking commanders would generally have better likelihood of activating units, but are limited in how many units they can activate. Units might also activate under their organic commanders, but it would be less likely.

Combined with a morale system to cause unactivated units to sometimes fall back or advance on their own, you could have overall command of your units, but sometimes they don't respond, or do things you don't want.
-Kle.

A GM driven scenario device where orders come from on high that suddenly change the mission or the objective (maybe even down right insane orders).

Another scenario device is to have radio messages come from subordinate units reporting battlefield conditions. Let the players draw their own conclusions from what is being reported.

"But to play a game where the movements of your subordinates are arbitrary and out of control is like watching a badly directed movie. Why would that be enjoyable?"

I actually rather enjoy that sort of thing, for many late nineteenth century battles you might as well just roll dice for what units do once committed to battle, as they certainly don't respond to any sort of direction from above. The only influence a commander has is when and where to commit reserves, but I can appreciate that many people might not find that a particularly rewarding game.

wrt radios, orders etc in WW2 games, it partly depends on the level of game you are looking at, as well as the command structure of the troops involved. Top down command is fairly easy to model (even if in some cases it might involve writing orders or at least stating intentions to the umpire), and then it is just a matter of introducing some friction into the communications process if you want to change things, call artillery on targets of opportunnity etc.

A far harder command system to model is mission directed, as once tasks and attachments are assigned, the overall force commander as very little influence over what the subunits do. The easiest way to model it is to assume that they are well trained and 'always do the right thing' so they behave like the telepathic warriors we want our little lead heroes to be, but sadly IRL units operating in this way sometimes don't do the right things and in particular find it extreemly hard to coordinate their activities wth flanking units. Haven't really come up with a good answer for that one apart from multi-player games. The usual wargame rules solution is to treat them lke top-down command systems but make it easier for them to change orders, which works OK I guess (Spearhead et al). It is very hard to implement SOP type responses to things in tabletop games without a ton of rules.

wrt radios in tactical games I also like the Quarrie solution of having radio nets and limited comms capacity. It is particularly unkind if you make the players re-net evey time they move (thinking manpack infantry radios here), they very rapdly learn to rely on runners, flares and plans instead. A bloke on a motorbike becomes very handy indeed.

We didn't want it to be overly intrusive, justs occasionally frustrating. It rarely affects the player for more than one turn, usually just enough to upset a plan, usually at a critical moment, but you're right, it does require good players to be most effective. ;-)

Gary Kennedy wrote:

Radios tend to get a very bad press for WW2. They were heavy, not too reliable, and prone to atmospheric and geographic interference. It's a wonder in a way that armies perservered with them for so long!

Indeed so.

PRO document WO 232/77, "Communications within the Infantry Battalion", quotes from 21 Army Group/2064/2/OPS/(B) of 16 August 1944, "Lessons from Battle" by the Staffordshire Yeomanry. The CO of the Staffordshire Yeomanry seems to have been a man of strong opinions:

"2. Bad Infantry Communications. These are without exception deplorable. There is the general defeatist attitude amongst infantry that their communications are bound to fail once the battle starts. The attitude is justified as they always do. The result is that the plan has to be too rigid, and once troops are committed it is impossible for them to adjust themselves to the enemy's reactions. The whole system of infantry communications seems to require a complete overhaul."

Part of the overhaul suggested was to make the battalion signals officer a cap-badged Signals officer, as it says was the practice in Canadian and South African units at the time.

This paper also points out that infantry battalion HQs are scaled for only one set for rear link to brigade. This means that the CO cannot rove away from his HQ without losing his link to brigade. This is John Keegan's "forward to command, rearward to control" puzzle (from "The Mask of Command") with a vengeance, and I think is the sort of choice a player could usefully be confronted with in a wargame.

I don't know how many people reading this have tried using a valve-based manpack tactical radio, but I have, and half an hour with a Larkspur A41 set would, I think, be sufficient to disabuse anyone of the idea that they provide easy communications. Bear in mind that these are a generation on from the sets used by most nations in WW2, which still used crystals. I have hardly ever come across any set of WW2 wargames rules that shows the advantage enjoyed by the US in having valve sets.

Another thing that encumbers tactical radio communications is the need to encode transmissions made out of contact before making them. The late-WW2 British tactical cipher was a beast called Slidex, and, again, I am just old and creaky enough to have attempted to use it. This was replaced by Mapco, and then by Batco, which, while it seemed to me a good deal easier to use, can still cause a distressing amount of "Say again all after "Hello"" on the net.

Life has in some respects got easier over time, as crystals have given way to valves, transistors and solid-state circuitry, and finally software radios. More robustness, more power, and a better understanding of RF propagation have all helped, and radios are now very much more widely issued. With encrypted frequency-hopping radios (like the US SINCGARS) you can kiss goodbye to cumbersome manual encryption. There is, of course, a down side to all this, apart from the need to carry all those radios and their batteries (and the frighful nausea of frequency planning and manging the crypto fills). A sub-unit commander might, these days, have to monitor a number of nets at once. Consider the commander of an engineer troop; he needs to tell his own troop what to do on his troop net, talk to his engineer boss on his squadron net, talk to the arm he is supporting (and, who, perhaps more important, are providing his local protection) on a third net. Yes, He needs to be like Davy Crockett, with a left ear, a right ear, and a wild front ear. With his fourth wear, he needs to listen on his vehicle intercomm and say helpful things like "driver, halt" before the driver puts them all in a ditch.

This sort of thing happens everywhere supporting arms and services are task organized with the maneouvre arms. The commander of each sub-unit needs to be on one net to control his direct subordinates, and have a rear link to his own boss; everywhere a supporting arm or service commander has in effect two bosses, he needs two such links.

A modern British battlegroup would be expected to have the BG command net, gunner net, engineer net, log net and medical evacuation net, maybe with an alt net or an aviation or air net as well, plus nets for all the sub-units. Draw it out in full, and it looks pretty hairy. It is; but all this knitting is necessary to achieve combined arms co-ordination.

I have never seen a set of wargames rules that deals with these problems to any extent at all. Perhaps that is why wargamers so often think that achieving combined arms co-ordination is an easy thing to do.

All the best,

John.

PC game verse PC Assist big differnce.

All this talk about not having control is never backed with any realistic history. Army's don't run around chaotically with no control. This communication thing is overdone as are all these claims that nobody had command of there troops. Armys manuver fight under orders they are cohesive units.

And there is no sufficient evidence, Arhnem or not, that there was frequent massive breakdowns of communication.

These are always tide to fog of war. Out of command whatever you have to call it. Its stripping the player of the POINT of these games to be in command.

In a large part it is that wargames with their god view, and the ability to co-ordinate actions in both space and time, give the appearance of perfect communication between units.

Whereas most military operations took a lot of waiting while units moved around and then made sure each other was in the right place. Its not that they were in chaos, it was simply that they took time to co-ordinate their actions.

What many of the command and control mechanisms in games try to re-create is the delays and problems in co-ordination of actions between units.

Armies may move in a cohesive fashion, overall. But this is a slow and steady progress towards a pre-determined objective. It isn't an instant response to changing circumstances. It takes time for messages to be transmitted, and understood, and then cross-referenced with other info. Then for messages to go back. All of which tends to lead to the point units sitting and observing, until they get new orders.

No, Supergover6888, you are talking about Control, the ability to have every unit obey your orders.

Nothing is stopping you playing a game by the rules you choose, but though you may ignore those historical events that do not agree with your idea of the battlefield you cannot re-write history!

Peope don't refuse orders. They get shot for that. Nobody is stopping anybody from playing.. its a discussion. There is no history to this. Between the mentioned backups for for communication, Pre planning etc. It wasn't there. Armies are not chaos. They are organized and must be under leadership and control to function. Show the Corps and divisions that melted in the war do to lack of radios?? It did not happen.

Missing a transmission or getting garbles message, sure. And like the example QRF gave I use that. What I have seen though is most use these arguments with phrases like "sometimes order wont get followed" and so on to replicate loss of a command structure that did not happen.

"Most rules that attempt to model command/control however tend to make units follow orders slavishly, or alternatively nothing gets done whatsoever."

I was taught in the absence of command / communication to obey the last set of orders. In training the end result could mean taking an objective that was no longer relevant or sitting on my butt while I hear another unit engaged in a fire fight.

Supergrover6868
As far as I'm concerned war is just a series of foul ups connected by the odd moment when things go right, anything else is just not real life. The only war/wargame where everyone obeys all the orders, and every action is a sure thing, is chess.

By the way, Is Paris Burning?, which guns are we charging? etc etc etc

Ditto Bird

I've read all of your battle reports and I really liked the one where the Germans have to conduct retrogade. The pregame radio narrative was very cool. I think you should draw from your real life experience to create the conditions you want to simulate, incorporate them in scenario specific ways.

OK, game this: You're the commander of a Russian tank company. You have a radio and can talk to battalion and vice versa, and, if you're lucky, your platoon commanders have radios that can receive (but not send). The other tanks in your company have no radios at all. You or your platoon commanders have to wave bright colored flags at them to send them a message -- if they're watching you instead of the panzer that's shooting at them! (BTW: all the German tanks have radios that can send and receive.) In addition, you are the commander and gunner of the tank you are riding in. Do you begin to see what I was talking about?

Check this battle report to see a small-unit battle where a lack of radios played a big part -- especially for the French: TMP link

Tasker Watkins (the legendary Welsh rugby selector) won his VC while continuing to follow orders when comms had been lost and Bn had lost control of his company. He led his company deep into enemy lines, took and held his objective and then, when communication had been re-established and it was discovered that the operation had been halted, he had to lead his company back to friendly lines.

So to recap – he lost comms and battalion lost control. His strong leadership qualities meant that he pressed on with his CO's tactical intention. A weak or cautious leader could easily have halted the movement or begun a retrograde movement to regain contact with the battalion.

I've got a few hundred books sitting here and virtually all of them have some tale of officers losing the plot and subordinates not having a scooby of what is going on around them. I've even experienced it myself and that wasn't even in wartime!

Anyway, I've been following this dscussion with growing amusement… Go for it Grover! Don't let little things like facts and people's personal experience of military 3Cs get in the way of a firmly-held opinion! ;o)

"some tale of officers losing the plot and subordinates not having a scooby of what is going on around them."

You know its bad when the men are double timing through the woods humming the Benny Hill theme.

Thanks so much for the responses so far. I may have made things a bit vague by not mentioning what level I play at, but I was looking for some general ideas.

Supergrover, I think your head would explode if you ever tried Piquet! Seriously, I can understand the desire to be able to control one's forces on the table, but I wonder if maybe you are underestimating the importance of radios in a modern army as was demonstrated pre WWII in many major exercises, notably (I forget the year) the British brigade level armour exercise that took place in the early 30s. Armies are much more spread out than in pre-20th century and radios are a major innovation fro command and control. In my own case, I absolutely hated radio silence on exercise and would usually audibly sigh when leading elements of our formation made contact and I could finally straighten out my junior call sign who was continually mis-interpreting my hand signals.

I must disagree with you, though, I don't believe the communication thing is overdone. I'm not sure if a lot of rules really address it directly – keep in mind, though, I haven't played a huge number of rules and pretty much none of the ones that have been mentioned here. But I suppose it's something that can be part of command and control rules – activation pips and so on.
--
Tim

Peope don't refuse orders. They get shot for that.

Right.

When was the last time that happened?
-Kle.

"Peope don't refuse orders. They get shot for that."

I seem to remember someone saying (a certain Mr Hitler),

"There will be no retreat, there will be no surrender, you will fight to the last man and the last bullet"

When you're at the sharp end, and the brown stinky fluid stuff connects with the ceiling mounted rotating device, then everything, including choices, seems much clearer.

Vision and hearing can be very selective when continuous breathing depends on the outcome.

Phil Barker long ago said. "The object of a control systen in a wargame is exactly the oposite of the real world, it is to build in some friction not try to get rid of it".

I think all would agree that an accurate simulation is near on impossible and probably not required. We (MG) address it in a similar manner (but not identicle) to Stargrunt.

Commnders get "Free activations" they pass down the line either by die roll if they are far away (radio) or directly if within 60m ((i.e. waving, shouting etc). It then gets a bit more sophisticated in that simple orders to whole sub group units like "Panzer March" are more reliable and get to everybody at once.

The final mark of a good game (to us anyway) is that the game will kill you if you don't have a plan, but you don't have to write it down.

Stargunt has an excelent system (has some thing in common with Squad leder) we just built on it.

"Peope don't refuse orders. They get shot for that."

Or as Stalin is reputed to have said, "It takes a brave man to be a coward in the Red Army!"

But there are times when you can tell the CO to his face that what he wants to do is really freaking stupid, likely to be fatal.

Just ask anyone here who's been an NCO. The butterbar may be amenable to idea corrections, as long as the NCO can show how to accomplish the orders a little differently (with less risk to the unit).

For me, the most annoying thing in wargaming is that some players insist on having complete and utter control of their troops. Any one who has read any military history or (better still) served in the army will know this is a nonsense – if anything can go wrong, it invariably will. I was only a lowly Corporal, but could tell a hundred stories of misunderstandings, confusion, and people getting lost – so you can imagine what a Major General must go through. History is littered with examples of troops attacking the wrong objective, or not moving when they should, or not getting to a start line on time, or getting lost, or querying / refusing orders, digging in instead of pushing on, or blasting friendly units by mistake etc etc.
While by no means perfect of course, radios were a huge step forward in this regard, and it is farcical not to try to represent the massive advantage presented to an army who had plenty of very good ones over one that didn't. The one with better communications could react to changes of situation / new orders far more rapidly than the other, they could call for reinforcements faster, send back reports quicker, be told to stop firing at friendly troops, more easily coordinate with neighbouring units / supporting fire etc etc – basically there is a significantly lower chance of cock-ups happening.
Those who can accept anything other than complete command of their troops are not interested in even attempting to simulate history.

bollox

That last line should read:
'Those who CANNOT accept anything other…'

Hope that makes more sense now.