"Radios in Wargames" Topic

Supergrover6868 31 May 2009 1:53 a.m. PST
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?

link

This failure of C3 happened just about fifteen years ago, with the best C3 available in the world, certainly quantum leaps ahead of WWII. There is no such thing as total control, because war is a collision of two mutually exclusive plans with polar opposite objectives. All sorts of positve and negative events occur, success is having more positive than negative.

Here's an email WW2 game I just finished conducting that illustrates the problem. East Front, 1942. Check out the problems the Russian player (Glen) had controlling his T34 company, compared to the ease with which the German player (Chris) controlled a reinforced platoon of panzers.

link

This email format is really great for simulating the fog of war.

There still is nothing convincing that Ww2 armies of western allies and Germany had major issues with Command, and large bouts of troops refusing orders. This just is not reality. The US and UK and their allies did not blunder their way to Germany. Careful planning and skill was the major contributing factors. The maxim about no plan surviving battle is true but is being taken to a massive and unrealistic extreme.

Also target misidentification is not a failure of C3.

I spent 4 years in the US Army myself and there is no way anybody would make up there own mission while totally out of contact. If you feel you can achieve last known objective without up to date knowledge of changing battlefield conditions. Good for you. and Good luck your sure as hell gonna need it. So servicemen. Why not tell me all about the time you told your CO to got hell while under fire. Not that will be amusing.

Your a anecdotes aren't facts!! Give a vague story with no back up no backstory of the situation even if true DOES NOT IN ANY WAY provide evidence of this being some sort of epidemic that was consistent. some isolated story and the generalized remark of "hundreds of books" is some proof of fact. IT ISN'T.

Not to mention carrying out last known order is not losing CONTROL. Did this dude run off willy nilly. Refuse an order? Did he move beyond his objective? Would every individual unit always do the same? Would they survive? NO. Whould they make up there own new mission ASBOLUTELY NOT! You can have a thousand books and that still be absurd.

While superhuman heroism was great, Unit commanders did not lose control of troops on a regular basis. Nobody refuses commands and lives. And some Rommel reference doesn't change that. Field Marshalls ignoring Hitler is another dimension from Pvt Smith telling LT Jones to buzz off.

The behind enemy lines and isolated thing is Hollywood not history. Kelly's Heroes was a great flick but there is no reality to slipping a platoon of Shermans 30 km deep into enemy territory. Units don't do well isolated and out of command. Being alone doesn't really most men into some sense of being able to take on the enemy army all alone.

Nobody suggested that they did have MAJOR issues with command and nor did anyone suggest that troops disobey orders… You're inventing an extreme counter-point to your argument in order to justify your own argument that everything always goes to plan.

All of the comments above by people with REAL military experience (including me) clearly demonstrate that SNAFUs are the baseline state of existence in tactical engagements – even on exercise when there is no shooting. Comms will be lost for a variety of reasons and leaders will either obey their last orders, will use their initiative in the absence of relevant orders but within the overall intention of The Plan, or will simply sit tight and hope for orders/everyone to go away/sink into their pink fluffy place.

"argument that everything always goes to plan"

Thats not what I am saying. The idea that units disobey or make up there own orders is not reality. Sure Plans go wrong. The nemy was in the wrong place. Your arilrery was not on time or short, etc.

But mechanics that strip you of control of your units is neither fun nor real. If a unit is isolated from communuication it will not compound that issue by running off on its own. Nor will they refuse orders. Many systems have rules for that occuring very often.

Where are your 'facts' that everything goes perfectly every time? And again, nobody has suggested that people blatantly refuse orders, but even in peacetime I've known many that have been unable to carry out their orders due to SNAFUs, lack of initiative or simple rank incompetence.

To be honest, I'm at a loss to understand exactly what you're arguing about.

I'm sure we're all extremely apologetic for our personal military experience and given examples as 'vague anecdotes' (even if my example was drawn from Watkins' VC citation, two 53rd Division histories and my own conversation with the great man himself).

Next time I will endeavour to quote verbatim from as many sources as possible and… oh no, on second thoughts, this isn't an academic journal and I can't be bothered…

Noodby said it fgoes perfectly. Ther is n hisotry supporting men runnign around randomly. Quote verbatium where you can find me in Detail and backsotry where men, went off on there own isolated. Notlast known orders.Where they refused to orders. These hundreds of books with all these fact explaiing how the bunglaing armies with no cohesion just stumbled across europe like herded cats.

Battlefield conditions change. Enemy makes unexpected plans. Soldiers do not turn to individuals just cause they are under fire. Nobody with any real world military experience can ever be taken seriously with this attitude. You have learned nothing if your simply going walk off on your own the minuter the balloon goes up. In wargames fog of war is about knowing where the enemy is, or not. Communication is being able to relay orders. Men will not dosibey orders or make there own. If a unit is out of command it will try to reestbalish that communication. If it is involed in a missiona dn engaged with an enmy sure it will finsih it orders.

In several systems of late, you lose all control and this as appaluded for it s realism. Its not real at all. Third platoon will not just decide to change the plan with no authority. If they are not in contact with the enemy they will seek to reestablish communication. Sure a low level commander will use intiative to do that. And Im sure there plenty of little tales about running into the S*&^ while doing so. Thats a far cry from a unit just breaking ranks and doing its own thing.

AS a player your the commander. You make a plan. It wont survive contact with the enemy. Yep true. But the game turns into idiocy if you by smoe dice roll, or card drawn your tank platoon just moves some empericaly derrived amount for example.
wantring to game out that movie scene where a guy attacks the wrong hill, thats not history. Its not history cause these systems make things liek that happen by some randomized system that makes a a subordinate comamdner do bizzare unreal stuff like disobeying an order, or that some how "go right" sounded like "go left". Or that some tanker would jsut keeping advancing and be to stupid not to have any of his own situaionla awareness cause his radio is busted. As if he couldnt decide on his own he was rolling into a bad seen ALONE. Its this weird idea that anytime a subordinte thinks on its own it will mean bad things and that loss of a radio is a cmoplete collopse of command structure.

The book Steel Victory Discusses the problem of infantry and Tank cordination. It was difficult but yet they still prograss. The units didnt collpose, they didnt disolve, They were under command and directed.

These war is chaos rants are so bizzare on one hand everbody always talks about simple and less detail but then focuses on extremely minute and intricate detail.

Simple is no commo, no orders. Follow that last known from CO. IF you see other sister units moving in other direction you send somebody to figure out whats up. If you dont see anybody around you. Best to sit still unless your engaged. Then some limits on advance of the unit makes sence. Why pay for minis not to be able to control them. your not simulating hisotry your misinterpreting it.

This, again, is where I like BKC. The rules allow every unit or stand to do one thing during an initiative phase but to do anything coordinated or multi-faceted you must be able to issue orders during the Command Phase. If you use unit initiative then you pay a penalty during the command phase because the unit is doing it's own thing! You play as the commander but you fight as the sub unit commander!

You also to get to see that initiative is a double edged sword!

Nobody has suggested any such thing here – I most certainly did not, so please do not suggest that I did. In your earlier posts you were suggesting that things were always great, that signals were always great, that comamnders did not lose control and that everybody always carried out their orders in co-ordinated action…

Units DID get lost, units DID lose contact, units DID fail to complete their orders for various reasons such as lethargy, fatigue, technological failure, lack of initiative and an inability to adapt to new situations.

It is what Clauswitz referred to as 'Friction'.

Plans are almost NEVER perfectly co-ordinated and comms almost always fail just when you need them the most. Sidney Jary, in his seminal '18 Platoon' refers to the horror of being locked into the timetable of the Big Plan, which almost invariably failed or only succeeded with massive losses. He goes on to state that his platoon's successes (and indeed those of other units in his experience) were when the platoon commander had freedom of action to use his own initiative: e.g. his platoon's action at Mont Pincon and the simultaneous independent action by 13/18th Hussars in the same battle, which led to Mont Pincon being captured despite a near-total loss of control of the battle and a total stagnation of the brigade's effort to take the hill.

I entirely agree that your examples of silliness are exactly that – silly. Nobody here has made any claim otherwise and to suggest that we are promoting such wargame silliness is inaccurate and disingenuous. To be honest, I'm not aware of these silly wargames rules of which you speak and I don't know anyone who would seriously regard such things as 'realistic' so you seem to be arguing against nothing.

These sort of things have been applauded in many discussions.. Nothing is specifically about any ONE thread. Al over the net in many war game forums the idea of Chaos on the field is misinterpreted to mean some sort of instant collapse of command and control. There are posts here on this thread discusing loss of control of units. There are on other threads along these same lines in the past. There are discusions of it on BGG,CSW, wargamer.com, ACG and other smaller forums and has been for a long time now.

Read any book on the Ardennes 1944 and you will find numerous examples of units standing thier ground when ordered to fall back,not pushing forward when specifically ordered to and so on.These are documented examples from reports written and made at the time from people such as Dietrich.Pieper Hodges etc.

but of course you know better.

If you were in the army (which personally I doubt) you would have a far more realistic view of fog of war and basic foul ups and troops in combat not doing what they were meant to.

"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.

Dragon Gunner, why does that sound like the voice of experience to me?

I don't currently play any games where I am not in complete control, although I am looking at getting a copy of 'Legacy of Glory', where I will not be in any control of my own troops. The best description of LoG that I've read is "You're fighting your own army, the guy on the other side of the table is just a complication". I like the idea for any action pre-radio.

Once radios show up on the battlefield, however, I am much more likely to want to have better control. How to achieve the control is a different discussion.

In Infinity, you're controlling individual soldiers. There are a total of 2 morale rules in the game: 1) make a willpower roll if you've been hit and your armor stops the round, if you fail move to nearest cover or go prone, else carry on; and 2) roll your LT's willpower if you've taken 60% casualties, if you fail the entire force starts to Retreat!, else carry on with the mission. Other than those two situations, you have perfect control of your troops.

In Flames of War, there are rules to describe how some forces have better comms than others. 'Hen and Chicks' is one, but the US rule allowing all command stands to act as artillery observers is another. Similarly, the "British Bulldog" and "German Mission Tactics" rules allow those forces to behave a little differently than the rules specify when the platoon leader has been KIA.

Epic: Armageddon uses a Unit activation roll to see if they do what you want them to.

Stargrunt has you roll a Communication test to carry out orders, unless you're within some distance of the Platoon or Company commander who's issuing the orders.

I need to play Force on Force a couple more times.

Grover, what are these rules you're so irritated with?

The behind the lines and isolated thing is hollywood!!!!!

Again any part of the Ardennes offensive has numerous examples of US troops cut off by advancing Germans (and vice versa near the end) acting on thier own initiative.

Of course I must not read those books as they are untrue I should only listen to you.

Also as you say anecdotes mean nothing are you seriously implying we should ignore all veterans?

Dragon Gunner, why does that sound like the voice of experience to me?"

So if my Screen name was Division Commander that would sound like experience????!?!?!?

Anything in before the second world war is a different dynamic. It makes much more sense for one of your regiments to do something unexpected due to the communication of the time.

There is a consistent call heralding of rules for World War Two, that strip you have command of units. All these arguments above are used. Chaos of war and all that rot. It is a trend in thought that these kinds of rules in games are realistic. They aren't. But In WW2 and beyond its a whole new ballgame.

Blitzkrieg Commander is one. "The lack of control makes me interested in the game." from a yahoo group. This kind of sentiment is expressed by many on all the forums I mentioned above as well. Pertaining to a number of games and/or the concept of a the mechanic in general.

So, even though I know you won't answer, I am interested to learn where your knowledge of WW2 comes from? If you're not interested in what the books tell us or what anecdotes those who were there have (even though you praise Meyers book), how do you know what you say you know? But you never tell us.

Supergrover, I think you have some valuable input, but what you're trying to say would come across more clearly if you typed slowly and accurately, and summed up your thoughts.

So,even though I know you won't answer I am interested to learn where your knowledge of WW2 comes from?If your not interested in what the books tell us or what anecdotes those who were there have (even though you praise Meyers book) how do you know what you say you know.But you never tell us.

He was there man, from the Libyan desert to the snowy Steppes, the jungles of Burma to Europe in '44. He was there man. Just. Don't. Argue. Unless you were in the forces (I was, but I'm damned if I'm getting sucked in…oh), your opinion don't count for anythin'.

Anyway, R Mark Davies has laid out the case for the defence eloquently

wantring to game out that movie scene where a guy attacks the wrong hill, thats not history.

Balaclava?

I wonder how long SG'll last before he's in detention again?

But mechanics that strip you of control of your units is neither fun

You know, this poor fellow has come back in a flurry of intesity (at least on the topics I've seen him so far), making him a lightening rod for derision, but you know what? That point, by itself, is perfectly legitimate. It represents that same contrast in views of whether a game is fun as one finds with opposing views on a game like Piquet.

Supergrover, if you're not familiar with Bob Jone's/Brent Oman's Piquet, it is a (great, in my opinion) game system whereby chaos is the norm and it is sometimes extremely difficult to get your troops to do anything you want them to do. This difficulty seems to either turn off players or, in my case, really draw them to the game.

Some of the folks who don't like Piquet claim it's the fog of war aspect, the difficulty in commanding that turns them off.

Piquet is a game, so the ciriticism, for those for whom it applies is legitimate. If they don't find it fun, they don't find it fun.

nor real.

I think the difference, though, is Supergrover's insistence that it is not real. In my comparision of his side of the argument here to Piquet, most anti-Piquet players will admit that command friction/chaos does occur in real life, but that the way Piquet depicts it is not fun.

I haven't rehashed the old topic here, but vaguely remember it. Supergrover, many of us have real military experience, and yeah, complete control of one's units like you describe is just not reality. It's certainly much, much easier to do with radios – crumbs, I can only imagine how it was to command troops before mid-WWII – but it's not the complete control to which you seem to ascribe.

Veteran and unit history accounts from WWII will, time and time again confirm this.

So I'm not sure where and on what you base your rather strongly made postings. You need to start citing examples.
--
Tim

Communications are an interesting point. In my M-577A1 as a Tac Intel Officer, I had a VRC-46 and a VRC-47. With everything up and running in perfect order, I could talk on 2 nets and listen on a third. Generally, the equipment worked very well. However, as a company commander in a 1/4ton with a VRC-46 set on the same freq and squelch as the person I wanted to talk to on a hill 2 miles away, nothing! In the words of Chief Dan George in LITTLE BIG MAN, "Sometimes the magic works, and sometimes it doesn't."
At the Armor School, we played a 1/285th scale series of scenarios where we started in a 4'x6' box painted like a tank turret inside with a small vision block and a PRC-77 radio on our back. This was to simulate the fact that you could not be everywhere instantaneously on the battlefield.
The field was literally the terrain around Irvington, Kentucky, where we could actually do terrain walks. The company battle position was about 3 klicks deep and 4 across. It was impossible to be everywhere and do everything at once.
I would have to trust my lieutenants and their sergeants to carry out a mission order. If their plan was in trouble they were free to change it as far as I was concerned. If they were up to their eyeballs and armpits in bad guys, they didn't have to ask permission to change their plan or even tell me until they could do so when not in danger of being overrun.
Natokina.

So I'm not sure where and on what you base your rather strongly made postings

My guess is that he enjoys arguing.

"So I'm not sure where and on what you base your rather strongly made postings"

from Reality,

Armys are ORGANIZED see. Unit cohesion does not crumble cause a radio is busted. Its not the only one. Changing a plan due to changing conditions is reality. A player makes those changes, If a the rules make them up for him, why not just turn on a movie.

Men DO NOT make up their own orders EVER. Theres big difference between adapting to conditions and running off on your own, or refusing an order.

back several pages, Gary made a great post on communications. There lots of means.

I spent 4 years in the US Army myself

Then you spent the 4 years in the brig – certainly you weren't a field soldier if you are taking this point of view. On the other hand, I was certain you had identified yourself as being in the UK before, but I could very well be wrong.

A player makes those changes, If a the rules make them up for him, why not just turn on a movie.

I think I'm finally seeing your point. However, I think this is from the perspective of a player that wants to be controlling the highest command decisions right down to the level of deciding what weapon or exactly how many rounds an individual soldier will fire.

This is great in a 1:1 representation, but the trouble is command perspective. If you don't care about that, great, but a lot of people do want a game that is a good representation of WWII combat and therefore level of command comes into play.

If, for example, the game is meant to represent the level of command of a company commander who does not have line of sight to the smallest unit he's worried about, his squads, what do you do when the squads are out of command?

By your reasoning, you feel the player should be able to do what he wants with them. OK, if that works for you, have fun. But again, for those of us who are concerned about command issues, this is not accepable, because you might as well be assuming the squads have telepathic connections with their commander, because you are going to have them do what you want.

Again, see the posts from those with experience in the field as to how unrepresentative this is. I won'd go into it anymore, because you seem incapable of digesting the truth about it, regardless of how many times it is presented to you.

So let's look at what might have happened in historical perspectives had a squad been unable to receive orders from its company commander.

The alternatives are:

1) Carry on with last orders as best you can;

2) Stay put until the company commander re-establishes contact via runner or visual signals; or

3) As some armies placed initiative and self-starting as a premium trait in junior leaders, the squad might just look at the situation that they can see (remembering their perspective may be very different because of their location, enemy contacts and so on). So yes, men do indeed make up their own orders once they have gone as far as they can with #1, above. I did it many times as a platoon commander as did my company commander when we were out of comm with the battalion commander.

I'll leave out running away as I'm assuming we're dealing with trained and at least somewhat competant troops.

So how do you deal with options 1-3? If you do it as you seem to be describing, you might as well, as I've already said, assume telepathic comm links. If you want to represent this in a believeable manner, you need the rules to deal with it.

You call #1 and #3 "adapting to conditions", but remember, you can't adapt to the conditions the company commander sees, otherwise you'd be accepting orders/signals from him. Thus the reason for such rules.

I can't believe I'm bothering to take the time to explain this to someone has proven he's incapable of listening and digesting any conflicting point of view and who has behaved like a totally ignorant twit who completely hijacked my original question from 30 May, anyway.

We'll see what this begats, but I'm thinking just stifling and starting a new topic requesting people stay on topic is the way to go… <sigh>
--
Tim

Radios, yeah you can miss a transmission. yeah that can lead to bad things. But a miss transmission doesn't mean totally out of contact. Even a down radio doesn't necessarily mean you cant communicate totally.

a unit out of contact is not independent and can not nor will not act totally independent of Superior or suborned units.

The misinterpretation of this by people is individual unitive. It is encouraged by the Germans emulated by the Americans and disposed by the Soviets.

Individual unitive being taught can allow for flexibility in carrying the orders of your superiors. It does not mean LT 90 day wonder is going to make up his own battle plan independent of the actions of the rest of his Entire nations armed forces. Some systems do that with out of contact units. There are no 100 books with tons of historical evidence of every Joe six pack saying, hell with it boys, we'll take them on alone.

Going out there blind and alone is suicide no matter how movies the make like Guns of Navarone. I think all this Hollywood commando team stuff has gotten people confused.

Its not about you cant play a game. Its that I dint find buying expensive miniatures only to be told how to move them is very fun and cant for the life or me believe others do. I think they are so convinced about these misinterpret concepts that they say its fun cause its easy and realistic. It isn't realistic but it may be easy.

He can't see my post but could someone point him in the direction of a copy of "A Bridge Too Far" maybe?

My guess is that he enjoys arguing.

My money's on .

Now, now, Connard, no reason to make that assumption. I do know a few people that never met an argument that they didn't like (like my own grandfather). I think 'excessively stubborn' is more accurate.

Disclaimer: I don't really do *ANY* gaming at above the reinforced company level, and usually stay at the reinforced platoon level (in WW2/Modern terms).

You have three real choices at the table:
1) Assume comms are perfect (or nearly so) for all forces (like Warhammer Historical's 'The Great War')
2) Write variations of comms levels for different forces (like 'Flames of War')
3) Assume that you have a really limited ability to command your troops (like 'Legacy of Glory' and 'Striker').

Any one of the options gives you a playable game, yet they are all very different games (I think Striker would work better as a WW2/Vietnam game than as a SciFi game, comms have just developed way beyond what is represented in the Traveller universe).

Even Infinity (which assumes SINGCARS or better comms), has rules for the individual soldier taking actions that may be counter to what the player wants to have happen (like when the model's armor stops a round: you have to make a morale check, IF failed, THEN go to cover within 1/2 move OR drop prone, ELSE carry on). Flames of War has Platoon, Company, and Battalion command checks. Lose 50% of the unit, you have to make a command check, IF failed, THEN (command level) completely loses cohesion and is removed from table, ELSE carry on. Not a necessarily a problem if it's only a platoon, but if it's Company or Battalion, you're done.

Grover, I know you haven't d me, so could you please give an example of one of the games you're talking about?

"I do know a few people that never met an argument that they didn't like"

Are you para-phrasing Dolly Parton here?
Though I believe the sainted Dolly said:

"Ah neva met a may-ahn ah didernt laik"

SO now its a bunch of old ladies gossiping about people, Yeah that really makes the case.

Now, now, Connard, no reason to make that assumption. I do know a few people that never met an argument that they didn't like (like my own grandfather). I think 'excessively stubborn' is more accurate.

You reckon?

TMP link

when someone gets into such a foaming rage that you can 'tell' they were pounding dementedly on their keyboard, I'd say that goes beyond 'stubborn'

and is this even legal?

incestently

Interesting to see the 'PC games' idee fixe rear it's ugly head once more…or maybe not

Its that I dint find buying expensive miniatures only to be told how to move them is very fun and cant for the life or me believe others do.

You actually made some very good points above I can agree with, especially regarding the extent to which an out of command or out of touch unit to sub unit will come up with new orders.

No, a sub unit is not necessarily going to make up a whole new battle plan – that is patently ridiculous. But sure;y there is an air of uncertainty that might limit what the unit commander would choose to do? I haven't played any games where an out of command unit starts doing things on its own, but I have played games where such units might decide not to move until the commander gets them under his wing again, or even, with poorly motivated units, slink off. Or even just not perform movement forward unless the commander gets into line of sight or voice range.
--
Tim

IN game design category thers a topic about randomness Some fo the commetns here dove tail with what I am saying. "Friction" is not about random chaos. Especialy when in the the 20th Century.

Are you para-phrasing Dolly Parton here?
Though I believe the sainted Dolly said:

"Ah neva met a may-ahn ah didernt laik"

The original quote was by Will Rogers but he was before both our times.
link

"Friction" is not about random chaos.

Absolutely agree.

Jesus, Mary and joseph, there must be something wrong with me…
--
Tim

It's not about, refusal of orders or running off on a some lone wolf mission, and calling it Initiative.

"No, a sub unit is not necessarily going to make up a whole new battle plan – that is patently ridiculous."

Noenssence. There is no way your going Rogue in any army and being patted on the back for it. Military experince or not. Your simply not interpurting this stuff correctly.

"Veteran and unit history accounts from WWII will, time and time again confirm this."

There is not a one. The "Hundred books" claim is no more vaild the the temth time as it was the first. Again misinterpretation is the culprit.

"So I'm not sure where and on what you base your rather strongly made postings. You need to start citing examples."

So far nobody elese I have read has either. Only the Hundred book claims. Nowhere ever has a unit just gone rouge and decided to fight the war on its own. It doesnt work like that.

Nowhere ever has a unit just gone rouge

I think a few Red Army units may have…

Please note that a certain level of literacy may be required to understand the sarcasm above. I can only apologise profusely to those who lack the necessary skill set

Its obvious people jsut are not conecting these thigns properly as the running argument contradicts itself.

First you say radios cause command and control breakdowns, then you say units will act on own and dont even need to inform a CO about their actions. Well they both cant be true, in fact neither is.

You have an order you carry out. IN different Armies you may be afforded more lattitude in how then others. But YOU WILL OBEY IT. You will not make up your next mission on your own without any guidence or direction. A its monumentaly stupid, and B it will tend to raise issues with your superiors. The kind that will land you in large trouble. I really cant belvie there is any military expeince in insisiting that you are able too and are doing good thing by acting as indpenedent. Its the stuff of FPS shooter games not Military expderince.

Nobody doesnt notify somebody whats going on. If they didnt, cluster*&^ wouldnt even begin to explain it. If you see an oppurtunity you take it. But you dont just run off without communication. It may seem like a good idea but yhou dont know everything and somebody that knows alot more then you might have a good reason why its not a good idea.

To use a quote of mine. "This is not burger king you cant have it your way"

CO's need to know where thier units are and what they are doing. If a radios busted THEY DINF ANOTHER WAY. Dont tell me all this miltary exzperince. If I ran off when I was in the VAN during an exercise my ass what have a new mudhole from my CO. If We ran off on some "intitive" induced rogue mission. in all the other sand I was in, wed probbly wish we didnt lvie through it. People depend on you, you dont run off on them with some fabricated mission. EVER.

"Then you spent the 4 years in the brig – certainly you weren't a field soldier if you are taking this point of view. On the other hand, I was certain you had identified yourself as being in the UK before, but I could very well be wrong."

I was one and I really don't believe you any more then you apparently believe me. I as your insistence of a game mechanic being reality is pretty screwy your ideas are from PC games not reality. I don't care what western army you were in. I know better then to believe you have operated independently without the knowledge of a CO in any exercises and sure as hell not in any shooting altercation. You can claim to be Sir Richard Dannatt. It doesn't work like you think it does. Your theories come from games not the Military. I have no more use for you.

I have not responded to many cause I have ignored them. The editor claimed many of them weren't doing anything wrong. Well that's an obvious bias. But at least I don't have to .

Interesting to see the 'PC games' idee fixe rear it's ugly head once more…or maybe not

Your same silly tactics again. If you cant understand the difference between wargame assist and PC game,. You might want to think

Get the basics right then Or you could just stick to the typo things. LMFAO thats always such an indicator of intelligence. Secretarial skills, way to go brother.

"because the unit is doing it's own thing!"

which is why the game is totally unrealistic. No matter who many make a unsubstantiated claim of service time, no matter how manu want to call a stranger a liar. You don't run off and do your own thing and you don't ever refuse an order. If you don't receive one you don't make up your own. There is a term its called redundancy. Armies do plan for bad things to happen. They have alternative means of communicating. If you show that you cant take ordersm by runing off on your own. Youll be in the brig. I really doubt the British Amry allows their soldies to run around anyway they want. Ive never read all this supposed "historical" accounts of how Monty had to herd his Army like cats. Thats not reality. It is not how it goes in the US or Germany for sure. Regardless of al this suposed "military experince"

Supergrover – how come in one post you write like this (and these are not actual quotes, you understand) 'if yuo thunk dats whow it wus, you is a cotton-pickin fool' and then in the next you write something like this 'Nevertheless it is clear to the uninitiated that such a situation is utterly unrealistic'.

Did you take some sort of Magic Potion that makes you change randomly from Yosemite Sam to Bugs Bunny and then back again?

Or did you just forget to speak in character, like Katchemash and Baharlu Tribe used to do as well? Before they got banned for being Trolls I mean?

Pat

If you want to proofread, get a secretarial job.

There is a term its called redundancy. Armies do plan for bad things to happen. They have alternative means of communicating.

Valid argument as such, though establishing the alternative means of communication can take time, and thus cause delays in the transmit of orders. The primary means of communication (from platoon commander upwards) for WWII and after that I could think of are:

1.) Messengers (on foot, bicycle, horse, motorcycle, car). Travel time causes delay, especially when under fire. Also the messenger needs to know the location of the target HQ, and has to be able to find the way there (messenger getting lost on the way could result in some delay).

2.) Telephone (over physical lines). Very good means of communication when stationary, once you have the lines built up (which takes some time). However, the lines are liable to be cut by artillery fire (unless well dig in, which takes a lot of time), necessitating sending of repair patrols to locate and fix the cut (not necessarily nice work when under artillery fire), thus causing a delay until the communications can be re-established. Less handy means of communication when on the move, due to the time taken to build the lines.

3.) Radio. Very good means of communication when it works properly. However, various issues can cause troubles in establishing contact, and when contact works noise can still cause slowdown in communication (meaning again slight delays in delivering orders).

Besides these, there is also the use of visual and sound signals (flags, hand signs, drums, horns, shouting), though by WWII these would be primarily used for communication within a platoon.

Besides the delays in establishing communication, there are also the issues of having the orders also properly understood and interpreted: misheard word, a typo on written order, or misinterpretation of the meaning could all cause these, especially when under stress (compare with the amount of daily misunderstandings on your average Internet message board). And even when correctly understood, mistakes could sometimes happen in the interpretation of maps and in establishing your current position.

As a summary, I would think that the following should be taken into consideration when resolving how orders are carried out:

a.) Is there immediate means of communication with target unit, so that an order can be sent?

b.) If there is no contact, how long delay there will be in establishing contact?

c.) If there is no contact, what does the subordinate commander do in the mean time until contact is established? Would he:
- carry on with previous orders OR
- wait on current position until contact is re-established OR
- fall back in order to re-establishing communication OR
- do something else

d.) Once order is received, is it correctly understood and carried out?

"misheard word, a typo on written order"

For a group that never stops with the simplicity this is pretty nit picky stuff to try to add to rules IMO. I really don't think a typo would cause misinterpretation to the point of wondering out alone or anything life threatening, Communication with other units of the same unit and briefings after the order is issued would clarify that. If the battalion CO issues orders that are unclear the Company Co's would ask for clarification. I am sure that radios could produce misinterpretation. But radio procedures requires you acknowledge that you have clearly understood the transmission.

This is far more sensible approach and response then previous to pages of head banging nonsense from the flame warrior crowd.

The main thing is they wont make up their own mission. If your out of communication your out of up to date info. Up to date info may be incomplete anyway because of the fog of war. But knowing something is better then nothing. Last known orders carried out yes. Beyond that reestablishing contact would be priority.

The common rules of the past were that a out of contact unit may not advance and only defend itself. Moving towards a friendly unit or HQ was allowed. To reestablish contact. If ain't broke don't fix it. The mechanic always worked and was always accepted as realistic. The recent trend to random wondering units is not.

I really don't think a typo would cause misinterpretation to the point of wondering out alone or anything life threatening

The simplest example I could think up are map coordinates of your objective – if you have those erroneously written, then there could be surprising results.

Command and communication procedures are intended to minimise the amount of misunderstandings – but as in any human activity, errors can sometimes happen (and the existence of the procedures in the first place tends to suggest that the risk is seen as high enough to warrant taking steps to minimise it). Whether one considers the likelyhood of that error high enough to factor into rules is another thing.

A lot is of course situation dependent – the more time, better contact and less stress you have, the better the results. In-depth briefing with maps in the HQ before an attack should result in orders being well understood, while hasty communications over problematic radio connection might involve some level of failure.

As for actually implementing the orders, terrain can play its own role – in some places, land navigation is easier than others. North African desert might not be the easiest place around.

As regards game mechanisms, one option would be for players to specify in the initial orders (beginning of the game) what units are expected to do if they fall out of contact.

A particularly gut wrenching example of 'blue on blue' was due to a typo, albeit a verbal one. During the 1991 Gulf War a US Apache engaged a pair of US Bradley IFVs at night. The events were captured by the helicopter crew's camera and replayed on 60 minutes if I recall (which caused some controversy in itself). The pilot did check there were no friendlies at the map co-ordinates and the readback was flawed, someone said for example 3762, and got back 3672. Someone here might be more knowledgeable about the incident in case my memory is playing tricks. Regardless, it was a basic mis-communication in relaying information between fire unit and control unit. And it did cost lives. So I wouldn't write it off.

Gary

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).

This is a cool idea, even if it were random.
It would be like a "player" above you controling you, then you control the troops.
Facinating. Odd, but facinating.

Also, which particular game is this flame war about? I've played rules where units sometimes don't move, but I don't think I've ever played rules where units just sort of go off on their own. Though I bet they do better that way than they do when I lead them…

Once again Grover, the only person talking about 'random wanderings' is you. Nobody here has advocated any such thing and you haven't elaborated about what these rules are that you're ranting about.

Since your initial rants, to which we disagreed, you actually seem to have moved closer to our argument, so what exactly are you ranting about? If you're saying that 'silly things should not happen in wargames', we are entirely in agreement, as I have already stated above.

I am not and have not been discussing or advocating 'random wanderings' and associated silliness. I have been discussing the circumstances that can cause a leader to fail to carry out his orders, for a senior commander to lose control of the tactical situation, or the situations in which a leader will need to adapt his orders and use his initiative to achieve his objective within his commander's overall intent.

In your most recent rants you have actually been tending to agree with what I have been saying, but have been too busy having a rant to notice…

Your silly comments about 'Monty herding cats' only goes to show that you haven't read what has been said here. We have been discussing the tactical battle – i.e. below brigade level and mainly regarding sections, platoons and companies. If you have been talking about armies, corps and divisions all this time, you should have made that clear.