"Card w or w/o Dice driven activation " Topic

I just don't understand why you think someone had to screw-up in every battle that was ever fought? Or that screw-ups and confusion dictated the course of EVERY battle. Again, I go back to the point that if that were the case there would be no battles and no armies, no organized warfare in fact.

I do agree that trying to do "faithful" recreations of historical battles isn't much fun. Who wants to recreate a historical Malvern Hill? You have to incorporate some kind of play balance into every scenario cause if you don't then you've got to say to the Confederates "well guys, you've got to lose this one b/c that's what happened in the real battle, so make sure everyone attacks separately and at different times."

If you want to give surprising options, let the Confederate player have a range of pre-game options and deployments. Say for instance, they can chose between additional artillery units to make up a grand battery which might have a chance of suppressing Federal artillery fire or allow them to take extra infantry units? Alter the Victory Conditions so that the Confderates can have options, like they can try and win fast with fewer troops or in an extended game with more troops, but the Feds will have more reserves as well ? That's why John Hill is such an excellent scenario designer b/c he sees the merit of the "What if" in scenario design.

I don't think the participants, meaning the commanders, experienced the events as ALWAYS being confusing, frustrating and surprising. Sure that happened at times, but the VAST majority of times the commanders had complete control of what their units were doing and if they were being forced to do something that they didn't want to do, it was because of what the enemy was DOING to them, not b/c the enemy played a "Get out of Jail Free" card.

The chaotic, confusing, frustrating aspect of battle to the combatants is largely a myth perpetrated by the Vietnam War. Sure to grunts and men of the ranks who maybe didn't know the full situation or why they were being asked to do what they were doing, it might seem confusing at times and for certainty it looked chaotic to civilians sitting at home on the couches with absolutely zero context provided whatsoever--intentionally I might add. Now listen to an interview with conmmanding officers describing what was going on. You'll never hear them say "Ah, it was a quagmire of confusion and frustration. Ya know I never knew what the hell was going on".

The commanders knew what was going on b/c THEY were the one's calling the shots and dictating the action, NOT the cards. And no commander ever based a battle plan on an alignment with the stars, except maybe Hitler and we know what kind of disasters that provided for the German army. Stalingrad and Tunisia for starters

Here's an idea for card play. Once all the cards are dealt out to both sides any remaining cards should be flipped over and briefly revealed to both sides. Now let both sides formulate their strategies.

I just don't understand why you think someone had to screw-up in every battle that was ever fought? Or that screw-ups and confusion dictated the course of EVERY battle. Again, I go back to the point that if that were the case there would be no battles and no armies, no organized warfare in fact.
………..The chaotic, confusing, frustrating aspect of battle to the combatants is largely a myth perpetrated by the Vietnam War.

------------------
Maybe a lot of this comes down to individuals views of the nature of war and combat etc (as well as the competency of military leadership). The complete control for the vast majority of times thing might be true for the ACW (though it must be the first war that happened in) but its not my reading of a lot of ancient and medieval battles eg Bosworth where the whole Yorkist left flank refused to advance.

Now listen to an interview with commanding officers describing what was going on. You'll never hear them say "Ah, it was a quagmire of confusion and frustration. Ya know I never knew what the hell was going on".

----------------
as the actress said about the bishop "well he would say that, wouldn't he. But unless you were forced to by a card or Blunder type die roll, who on earth is going to do a Ney and throw the cavalry of the Imperial Guard at British infantry with time to go into square.
I'd agree that scenario design etc is a way to introduce different pressures etc, but I still have a great dislike of the player being able to sit there and move his whole army when he wants and stop it when he wants as if he was overhead in a C&C helicopter with a radio link to every unit (and a lot of rules have seemed to allow that in the past hence why I like HC and BP as ideas)

I suppose its a question of how to model intrigue as much as anything else and much of that would depend on the time period, professionalization of armies, emergence of nation-states, etc…
Again I say use scenario specific rules, or even a form of card play…

Or where its a case of what's the chance of something really getting screwed up, a lost courier, orders never delivered or they were confusing… I like the way Fire & Fury handles it. They have activiation roles but the chances of a brigade not activating in the beginning of a battle are very low. As the battle progresses and the forces become more increasingly engaged and worn, etc.. etc.. the chances of a brigade not responding go up. At that level of command I think it works well and reflects actual battlefield conditions well… and depending on the percentages which I haven't looked at recently, I'm sure there are some who could even make a strong argument against it.

In my own JR variant, I like to tie morale to the abilitiy of tactical units to perform certain tasks vis-a-vis Tactical Competence Checks as per original JR. I don't know why some people think traditionalists are arguing for total control b/c there are plenty of mechanics which recreate the conditions when control WAS LOST. Those were the conditions that generals tried mightly to avoid. It should be the same on the table top, not part of the SOP of the system.

PS And I'm not saying card driven systems can't be fun or don't have merit, I'm mainly arguing against the idea that command and control on battlefields was in actuallity some kind of fleeting, ethereal thing… is that a word? :) Anyway, IT WASN"T… THAT'S A MYTH. Even during the Middle Ages the knights and lords had battle plans that they tried to follow… and which they hoped that everyone on their side would try and follow.

To confuse the point a little bit, but to also offer a suggestion. Try a game where one side has to role or card play for activation and the other doesn't, i.e. they're always activated and see who wins. That might accurately reflect what the Mongols were able to do operationally against just about every army they faced.

"overhead in a C&C helicopter"

I think most games model command at a particular echelon, NOT the individual commander at that echelon. So, if I'm playing a division made up of brigades and battalions, when I command that division I also command the brigades and the battalions. I'm playing the three levels of command simultaneously, not the individual division commander.

I think what Maurice does is try and introduce the potential experience from the level of the individua rather than the level of the unit. It can be argued back and forth whether or not individual commanders experienced those conditions, I don't think a majority did, but I see the merits and the fun behind it.

Even during the Middle Ages the knights and lords had battle plans that they tried to follow.
-----------
I wouldn't deny that they had plans – its just that as someone said, no plan survives contact with the enemy – and that doesn't mean actual combat – as soon as the one commander starts to react to his opponent then the possibility of misunderstood orders etc goes up significantly – the Charge of the Light Brigade being perhaps an extreme example but not an utter aberration.
I suppose I am inclined towards the latter style as my main lecturer at uni was a great fan of "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence" (Norman Dixon) which was an interesting work on the tendency of a number of senior military people throughout the ages to behave like headless chickens under stress – it came at it from a fundamentally ant-militarist POV (that the structure of many armed forces in the past promoted the bone-headed and rather stupid) whereas perhaps in some cases (not here of course) those who over-venerate senior commanders and try to down play incompetence have their own agenda too (since obviously organisations perceived as led by dolts are unlikely to have much prestige etc)

So, if I'm playing a division made up of brigades and battalions, when I command that division I also command the brigades and the battalions. I'm playing the three levels of command simultaneously, not the individual division commander.
---------------
I know what you mean but the problem with that is that pre-radios etc and helicopters the btn commander wouldn't know what the divisional commander maybe can see from his hilltop – and vice versa, so at every level our little metal men can be instantly reacting in way that simply didn't happen. I increasingly dislike it when units whiz around like TIE fighters charging people in the rear and flanks because as the gamer one can see that there are no reserves in a particular wood to stop one doing it (or is able to move a cavalry unit from one side of his table half to the other to react to something happening behind a forest) that the commander on the ground would be very cautious about moving past without being sure there were no nasty surprises waiting in there. There was a picture of an ancients game (using FOG I think) in the latest WI where units were pointing in virtually every direction of the compass – again to my mind that simply didn't happen. That's why the orders driven approach of HC and BP appeals (and it also allows for a level of acting on initiative when close to the enemy)

In the whole range of what Clausewitz wrote nothing is more misunderstood than, "In the whole range of human activities, war most closely resembles a game of cards"

The operative word is "war" not "battle" or "engagement" which Clausewitz spends an entire book defining seperately from war. War consists of the entireity of human activity while the engagement is a mere part of that whole.

Bob Coggins

GNREP8

20 May 2012 11:13 a.m. PST

Even during the Middle Ages the knights and lords had battle plans that they tried to follow.
-----------
I wouldn't deny that they had plans – its just that as someone said, no plan survives contact with the enemy – and that doesn't mean actual combat – as soon as the one commander starts to react to his opponent then the possibility of misunderstood orders etc goes up significantly – the Charge of the Light Brigade being perhaps an extreme example but not an utter aberration.
I suppose I am inclined towards the latter style as my main lecturer at uni was a great fan of "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence" (Norman Dixon) which was an interesting work on the tendency of a number of senior military people throughout the ages to behave like headless chickens under stress – it came at it from a fundamentally ant-militarist POV (that the structure of many armed forces in the past promoted the bone-headed and rather stupid) whereas perhaps in some cases (not here of course) those who over-venerate senior commanders and try to down play incompetence have their own agenda too (since obviously organisations perceived as led by dolts are unlikely to have much prestige etc)

The statement that "no plan survives contact with the enemy" is sometimes true- but not a universal truth. What the simplitons don't understand is that when the plan succeeds, THAN THE ENEMY RETREATS, OR IS BEATEN WITHOUT MUCH happening, and the attacker wins the position or the battle, and NOT TOO MUCH IS WRITTEN ABOUT THE INCIDENT!!!! So if a superior force out maneuvers an inferior force and pushes it out of the way, we don't read much about it. If an army can see it is outflanked and draws back for a fight the next day…… the "card people" exclude that from their universe and make their universe the exception to the ordinary.

Most of military actions are of this sort. Armies poke and prod at each other for days, weeks and months without seeing an advantage. Why should the exception be the rule? Yes, orders get lost, people make mistakes, units f-up. Those are the exceptions, not the rule. Smart lower level commanders taking advantage of opportunity of terrain or poor enemy dispositions do make a difference. Having fewer units and card to play shouldn't decide a battle.

GNREP8, I think Thucydides would successfully refute whatever theories Norman Dixon came up with. And if you don't like people charging around then you haven't played a miniatures game with HIP or concealment. I haven't either, only board games, but it puts a damper on the charging around thing. Besides, the Rebs never cared who was beyond an open flank. They figured they'd whip them in turn too.

The "card people" ?!? :)

" the "card people" exclude that from their universe and make their universe the exception to the ordinary."

That is now the fifth time that you've made some sort of criticism without offering a single concrete example or naming a single game. You've claimed that card-based games:

1) Can't reproduce "prepared assults or historical orgaized attacks." [sic]

2) "With your card system, you can have the opponents elite guards standing with their backs to you 25 yards away and be prohibited from shooting at them. Happens all the time."

3) "If you have 10 more units than the other player, you can get 10 unanswered moves at the end of the turn. Happens all the time."

4) Can't reproduce a large historical attack like Pickett's Charge.

And now you seem to be arguing that card-based games can't represent a "normal" attack in which a larger unit beats a smaller one??

We keep asking whether you have an example of a specific card-based game that can't do any of these things? But thus far you haven't offered any examples.

It would be very useful if you could name specific games and explain exactly how and why the game mechanics prevent those things from happening.

Really quality discussion here – a good read with lots of interesting points. Thank you all.

I have a situation in a playtest game at the moment which puts some interesting light on the whole initiative vs card activation question.

Its a bit hard to explain without diagrams, but I will try anyway :

Situation is a couple of Prussian Divisions vs a couple of French Divisions, both cautiously moving to contact. I have played this one several times using different mechanics, from IGOUGO and card activation. They both play quite differently depending on the activation mechanic.

This playtest is using Empire … with all the nitty gritty details that those rules demand.

Now, first engagement contact of the game – a forward element of the Prussian cavalry reach engagement range of some advanced French battalions.

Therefore, a single Prussian cav brigade is now engaged, and one of the French Divisions is now engaged. The French Division includes 1 brigade of elite light troops, (which is a separate ME), so this portion of the Division is not engaged.

The Prussian cavalry are on attack orders, so they have to do something aggressive, and move to contact the French line at their front.

In doing do, their line of advance passes through a point which is within engagement range of the French legere to their flank .. which in turn triggers the French legere entering the engagement during the 2nd tactical move impulse.

So the French legere end up being engaged during this turn, which costs them 1 fatigue point. Being on defend orders, they can advance some skirmishers to bring fire onto the flank of the Prussian cavalry, but cannot mount a full attack on them.

So all in all, a reasonably complicated set of consequences modelled on the tabletop, which is entirely triggered by actions of the bodies of troops (ie – not triggered by any die rolls or cards drawn in this case .. its all deterministic.

The events that cause these actions and consequences in this case is 100% related to the actions of the players – ie. The player made a decision a few turns back to issue various orders and objectives, and now it is solely these orders and objectives which is determining who does what, in what order.

Of course, the mechanics of working all of this out is unbelievably complicated for a mere 'game' of toy soldiers, but it does have a very different feel to it from the commanders point of view.

Using different activation mechanics (cards, IGOUGO, action points, etc) … this situation above would play out differently as the French lights may or may not be able to take the chance to interrupt the Prussian cavalry attack on the spur of the moment, if the cards play out well for them.

In this playtest though, fate is set in concrete, and is a direct consequence of decisions that the players made on previous turns.

Not saying one is 'better' than the other – as all games are fun and satisfying in their own way .. but it definitely does change the feel of the game

If one can keep in mind that the operative word in wargaming is gaming, cards can be fun and to a certain extent challanging.

I perfer their use more in strategic games than miniatures wargames which mostly are individual battles because they are too subjective for my taste and they tend to slow the play of the game while players ponder which card to play.

Also the make up of decks are subject to the decision of the designer and in most instances even the slowest card counter can count the number and types of cards played and based on this determine what his opponent absolutely cannot do.

Bob Coggins

Dear Bob

The minor point first. Depends on the cards and how you use them. In my game I use two types of cards. There is an event card, which is pulled each turn by one side that can have innocuous to catastrophic events on one side or both, and that is out of a deck of 144 cards. Then there is a combat results deck, which give the results of combat. That deck is 100 cards. However!!!! While the number of cards in each deck of each type is fixed, I use FOUR DECKS of the Event cards, and shuffle them all together and take 36 of them off this master deck for the deck used in play which is the one the players draw from. For the combat results I have about 8 decks shuffled together. Each player gets a lump of about 80 to 100 (we don't count em) and they can be in any order with any number of combinations within. Plus, discards are returned to the decks of the side used UPON and shuffled and cut, and to prevent stacking or cheating the GM orders the decks switched or changed, shuffled or exchanged every third turn or so. This puts the card counters completely out of business. None of these are held on to, you play them and they are there- like chance cards or community chest in Mononpoly. But these uses of cards are completely different from what is being spoken of here.

You make the excellent point that it is a game. And in gaming what is marvellous is that we ever got to where we are now from where we began. Featherstone, Moreschauser, Grant, Young, Scruby, Bath, et all had none of this and we had ripping good fun. However did we manage? All of them were essentially IGOUGO.

It is after all a game.

The statement that "no plan survives contact with the enemy" is sometimes true- but not a universal truth. What the simplitons don't understand is that when the plan succeeds, THAN THE ENEMY RETREATS, OR IS BEATEN WITHOUT MUCH happening, and the attacker wins the position or the battle, and NOT TOO MUCH IS WRITTEN ABOUT THE INCIDENT!!!! So if a superior force out maneuvers an inferior force and pushes it out of the way, we don't read much about it. If an army can see it is outflanked and draws back for a fight the next day…… the "card people" exclude that from their universe and make their universe the exception to the ordinary.
-----------
without being too much of a simpleton (ps any need to put it like that, really – we all I am sure read a lot and have our own pov), what we game are the full blown battles not the maneuverings that never turn into battles or that end when one side pulls back off the table at the end of turn 2 (unless you are playing a campaign when you might put the figures on the table and then take them off).

When it comes down to a battle, given that both sides have a plan, then I still think that orders getting lost, people making mistakes, units messing up is much more than the exception. I don't necessarily think that means pulling chance cards out every turn and indeed in HC you have to roll a double 6 to make a blunder (but failing an order esp an ambitious one and thus just standing around is more common).

And I do think you do have to have a way to stop our little lead men behaving either like the Brigade of Guards on Horse Guards all stepping off together or moving with the precision of homing missiles on that gap that only the CiC might be able to suddenly spot (regardless of what people did in the ACW i'd suggest that overall people were more cautious about the kind of maneuvers we all too often see on the table that end up in units pointing in all directions – WRG tried written order and to an extent it worked except that eventually people wrote orders that covered every eventuality. In effect too many rules systems allow the CinC to get on his Motorola to the lead legionary cohort and tell them to turn left as there's a big open flank over there.

Again my interest is mainly Ancient and Medieval and ECW, so I just don't like the idea of an army moving forward with its whole battle line in perfect symmetry

So accoridng to 1968billsfan, when someone wins a battle due to a successful plan we don't hear about it because not much is written about it.

What a novel idea.

Otto,

Your posts on game design are always welcome. I most especially think your thoughts about acturarial tables based on the length of movement might be a great idea for 20th Century games and perhaps musket era skirmish rules.

I do however suspect we will in the end disagree about cards for miniatures rules. The number of cards which include the same event, firing, moving etc is not just finite but also solely based on the decision of the designer. Eliminating a percentage of the cards from play is no different than casinos placing the manditory deal card at 25% of the 6 or 8 decks, good card counters don't care (I am not a good card counter especially since my stroke) and unlike casinos which prevent counters from keeping count gamers do not have that ability. As for frequently reshuffling, it slows play and in BJ it costs casinos money. That said I confess to enjoying playing card driven games on occasion – they're great fun.

Finally, I'll never forget finding a copy of Morchauser at the Pratt in Baltimore in 1958 or so when I was searching for a copy of Fletcher Pratt's Naval Rules. Then came my introduction of Bob Bard the author of Making and Collecting Military Miniatures and I wouldn't forget Vietmeyer. Sometimes I just sit at my computer and marvel at the range of options that today's miniatures gamers have.

Bob Coggins

OK – great discussion
I only know of <Buck's Look Sarge> system so I will use it for illustration (I will ref as LS activation) and it uses card and dice – for those not familiar to Busks explanation … each brig has 1d6 roll then cards are drawn one at a time – each die (brig unit or commander) = the resulting card it is activated to do an action. The "jack" is the interrupt/end turn card
Using <Steve64's> sample with Empire (which has activation by the ME) and let's pretend the Leger brigade is crack and not elite so the ME has 2 brigades.
The Prussian cav brig rolled a "2" and its ME commander is a "1" and the French engaged ME is a "2" and it commander is a "3". Several cards are drawn but not a1, 2 or 3 b/f the "jack" is drawn. All unlimber guns that haven't fired get to fire. So the only action is the French btry from the engaged ME fires a support fire. Ok very plausible- so how do we explain the inactivity of the Cav under an attack order. In the dice driven initiative the cav would have done something this turn regardless of poor roll. So I suppose you can play just black cards until they are all drawn.
The Prussian cav brig rolled a "2" and its ME commander is a "1" and the French engaged ME is a "3" and it commander is a "4". Several cards are drawn and then a "4" is drawn and the French ME Cmdr. activates. If he knows the cav brig has the same activation number as the his brig facing them he certainly plays his activation by giving it to the brig [ A large difference from Trad die roll where the player would have attached a turn earlier to increase initiative for this unit]. Now let's say you can't see opponents dice (FOG or war in play by some mechanic). The ME Cmdr. would most likely give his activity to the brig in order to jump to square with some high certainty vs. relying on rolling during the charge. Now the next card drawn b/f end of turn is a "2". The cav activate and face squares… hmmm so they wheel and charge echelon into towards the other brig. This brig now must roll to square….
So very plausible and the element of friction is the French wasn't able to have the entire ME form square at one time. This presents an elegant element without much activity by the players rolling and looking into charts and thus bringing some speed to game play as well.
My current conclusion would be… there looks to be some advantage to bringing the card element in and forcing some loss of control (helicopter affect as mentioned earlier) while not hand cuffing the player and burdening the game. I now see some merit to cards.
Thoughts?
Greg

Bottom Dollar said:

the VAST majority of times the commanders had complete control of what their units were doing and if they were being forced to do something that they didn't want to do, it was because of what the enemy was DOING to them,

The chaotic, confusing, frustrating aspect of battle to the combatants is largely a myth

The commanders knew what was going on b/c THEY were the one's calling the shots and dictating the action

Really? You must read different history than I do.

But don't you see that a wargame is a poor representation of reality and needs something to handicap the player from having too perfect control of events.

Case in point Eylau: Napoleon orders Augereau's corps to attack the left flank of the Russians. They advance into a blinding snow storm and one whole division wanders off to the center of the Russian position and gets destroyed.

Or the first day of Wagram when Bernadotte's Saxons are shot in the back by French troops causing them to rout.

Go back and reread those three sentences of yours dude, they simply don't track history. Ok, ok. Sometimes all the elements clicked and things went off without a hitch for force blue, but maybe things got all snarled for force red and that's why it worked for blue. Cards reflect intangibles that are unpredictable.

Counter point to my earlier comments
How far should the lack of control go?
Let's say the cav. were pulled back later by a withdrawal order and a Prussian INF ME moved in engagement under orders to assault the French Inf. The French INF had its order change to assault, during play anticipating the cav. to move on and need to pin the Prussian INF to the cav's rear.
The Prussians being less coordinated than the better French staff… should probably activate by Regt and not by the entire ME [which is the brigade for 1813]so 3 dice are rolled 1, 6, and 1 for the Line, Res, and landwher. The Prussian ME Cmdr. a 3 die result. The French roll 1, 2, & 6 for Ligne Brig, leger brig and ME Cmdr. In this case the only coordinated attack is the Prussian Line and landwehr, if both were in the front wave. Thus a 96/216 or ~44% (if my math is correct for 2 pairs in 3x dice and the RES regt. is in the second wave as the reserve) that two dice will have a same number [for either side in this case- remember the Cmdr. can put his activation to the inf unit but still must match the other unit's activation number]. Does this seem reasonable that (in this case) 66% of the attacks are not coordinated thus resulting in one formation advances and the other lags ( by waiting for activation in the following card draws and at some prob. X% of not moving at all due to Jack turning up after all the black cards were already played this turn)? A lot of IgUGo or Empire etc. games this would not have been an issue all would have gone forward upon the activation. Hmmmm!

Dear Bob

Thanks for the kind words, and I knew you would understand.

I am more sanguine that you could be won ovoer or at least have a more favorable view of the cards if you saw them in action. One thing I did not make clear- these cards are NOT for activation in my game, or when you fire or melee or move, in the combat sense they ARE the fire and charging, and have the direct results on the card. So for example, if your unit of Cuirassiers has a charge value of 4, you get to place four cards from your combat results deck (face down, you don't pick the exact cards, it's just like dealing off a deck) on my unit(s) you wish to charge. Same with fire etc. The game sequence in my game is modified IGOUGO. First the side with initiative moves, then the side without initiative, then combat, which is completely simultaneous (fire and melee). As such with all the cards, and all the varieteis (some of which can be modified by the event deck (of which only one is drawn per turn).

Card therefore have nothing to do with activation as I am speaking of them.

sorry about the use of the work simpliton- poorly chosen.

FatherOfAllLogic,

Snowstorms during battles are off-seasonal and scenario specific, not very commonplace.

Why were Bernadotte's Saxons shot in the back by French troops ? And don't tell me they were confused. Tell me WHY they were confused. Or tell me why they fired upon them. Was it their uniforms ? Or was it the experience level of the French troops and their commanders ? Perhaps it was both ?

In either case, the argument can be made that the commanders of those units WERE IN COMPLETE CONTROL and made the wrong… or less favorable… decision.

Think through your own logic. I have yet to play a wargame where a player is unable to screw-up or snarl something entirely on their own. Players don't need additional help from the cards in order to make it a certainty for the simple reason that the VAST majority of times it wasn't a certainty.

I think it really boils down to does one like playing the risks or not? With "interrupting" cards you don't play the risks, you just get a card turned over on you which says "You screwed up, even though you didn't really, but for game purposes you screwed up and now here's your penalty." Whereas, a solid wargame will allow YOU to make decisions which are more or less risky and then YOU are either rewarded or punished depending on the designed, built in probability of that risk, i.e. the DR Result.

Cards are less tense b/c players don't have to make judgment calls on the risks involved with ordering your troops to do more risky or increasingly dangerous things. Its just, "Aw shucks, I drew that crappy card. It ain't really my fault."

There has to be a middle ground.

Nonetheless, Napoleon knew it was a snowy day and after all Augereau was in complete control of his corps, you said so yourself.

And the French did shoot at the Saxons because they were confused, the uniforms were the same color as the Austrians, it was dark, the troops were hot and thirsty, and the commander of the French troops didn't get the memo about the Saxons being in front of them. But chaos almost never happens, you said so.

While Bernadotte may have been in complete control and calling the shots, the poor schmuck at the battalion level ordered his men (or maybe the men didn't wait for orders) to fire. You as the player know better than to shoot at your own troops, can't a random card or die roll be used to simulate that?

"a solid wargame will allow YOU to make decisions which are more or less risky and then YOU are either rewarded or punished depending on the designed, built in probability of that risk" But some risks are unknowable at the point of decision, thus randomness. Or you might say, 'well I got three units here attacking his one, it should work', but what if one or two units don't move with the others? Your risk assessment was good but you as a player didn't think about failure to act by your troops. You think that is wrong?

Full disclosure: I have never played a card or die driven game, but I read about them here and I understand what they are intended for. Now if you don't like that randomness, by goodness don't use 'em. I just can't believe your statements about control and chaos and so forth, really, my reading of history leads me to the opposite corner.

"Nonetheless, Napoleon knew it was a snowy day and after all Augereau was in complete control of his corps, you said so yourself."

Yes, precisely.

Doing battle with a high risk of a snow storm or advancing at night/dusk is high risk, especially when some of the guys on your side are wearing the same color as the enemy. Those are both reasons to take a roll to see IF something goes wrong… not something to design a game around. In both cases, the commanders almost certainly knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were taking great risks in doing what they were doing when they were doing it. If they had had 100% certainty that something would go wrong, they never would‘ve taken either but they decided to ROLL THE DICE. So, rather than letting people take their own risks, you just hit them with penalties randomly for risks they never take in order to recreate a so-called "feeling" of confusion that the vast majority of commanders never felt. That stands to reason.

Well, if we've read any of the same military history, it may be a case of the same sentence with polar opposite interpretations.

Of course, none of which is to say, there isn't a place for the cards or their "people".

PS Gotta say that was So funny :)

sorry, but I just want the wargame to be grounded on trying to apply military principles, rather than gaming card-counting in various guises.

"sorry, but I just want the wargame to be grounded on trying to apply military principles, rather than gaming card-counting in various guises."

I like things to be grounded in reality, also. Especially critiques.

So I take it you never could come up with any specific examples of actual games and rules that backed up all your claims and the negative things you said?

"You screwed up, even though you didn't really, but for game purposes you screwed up and now here's your penalty." Whereas, a solid wargame will allow YOU to make decisions which are more or less risky and then YOU are either rewarded or punished depending on the designed, built in probability of that risk, i.e. the DR Result.
------------------

surely though the problem with that logic taken to its extreme is that even the die rolling element would be viewed as somehow not grounding a game on military principles – ie in a recent skirmish game 4 knights and Warlord attacked an enemy Warlord on his own – 16 attack dice all missed or were saved – defending warlord killed all 4 knights. I've played ancient battles where the Roman legionaries succeeded in similarly missing with all their attacks and the Celts absolutely marmalised them. In both cases the player could say "Aw shucks, I threw some crappy dice. It ain't really my fault."

When one reads of some of the blue on blue incidents in Afghanistan I don't see that anyone can say that the people in charge were in complete control and thats with all the advantages of modern kit (mainly as whatever good ideas they had were let down by comms that didn't work and by poor briefings all the way down the command chain). Whilst not in the same realm, in my own work area meticulously planned operations have very nearly ended in complete disaster due not to poor decisions, but things like radios failing or people misunderstanding what they were meant to do. Thats doesn't necessarily mean that the people in charge lost control or that they made a bad decision – they were literally events that no-one could have planned for (almost as if an event card had been turned over that said "you know that car that is guaranteed not start well, its just started)

I feel rules that don't model probabilities of success in the implementation of orders (such probabilities based on a number of applicable variables) are a poor model.

No question that nothing in war can be taken for granted, especially the implementation of orders and the movement of bodies of men. These are done by men, after all, with all the imperfections of self and systems that implies. They are only, subjectively or objectively, more or less likely to occur in a certain way, or result in a certain outcome.

Commanders made decisions based on their subjective calculations and objective determinations of the probabilities as they saw them (certain objectivity/subjectivity even being a personality-driven variable in some rules) and so do gamers, of course. The choice (or argument!) remains- Which variables are applicable, and which method models them best? Rules lend themselves to cards, dice, or game master/umpire systems differently, and the players can choose whichever they prefer. My own observation is that dice allow a more intricate model, but, dice or cards, both need to be used in the context of a rules model that creates choices and probabilities the historical counterpart would have faced, prior to probability waving it's wand. In the end, the result, not the mechanics, needs to be within the realm of historical possibilities.

It seems to me that whichever model is chosen, to the satisfaction of the player/commanders prior to the start of the battle, the result ('what happened') derived ought to be happily woven into the narrative of the battle as 'historical fiction' and a jolly good time had as much by the fellow who's figures ran away as the fellow who conquered the table!

Oh Dear Not Another Lobotomy
21 May 2012 4:32 p.m. PST
"sorry, but I just want the wargame to be grounded on trying to apply military principles, rather than gaming card-counting in various guises."

I like things to be grounded in reality, also. Especially critiques.

So I take it you never could come up with any specific examples of actual games and rules that backed up all your claims and the negative things you said?

Sorry for all your recent operations, I hope your recoveries are doing well.

I really can't answer your questions explicitly, as I am not an expert on any of the card-based systems and did not write down exact explicits on any of the germain game that I have played over the last 2-10 years, mainly at conventions. I mention some of the "gesh, that doesn't make sense or seem fair" things that I experienced. I'm sure these were not from the game system that you are a proponent of.

From memory, I recall one case where a unit was carefully emplaced in a central defensive position and the opponent zinged 3-4 minor units across its front, into really irriating positions from which they could cause serious mischif. The defender did not waste his fire on them because he was eyeing a powerful unit directly in his front, who could march directly on him. I think that in a real situation, those minor units would be scared shxxless to have darted there and could not have occupied the ground in front of the defender at the same time that the big attacking unit. (who ulitmiately did advance and charge into contact). I don't remember the rule set, but it just appeared way to "gamey" to me. I think the basic principle is that the card-driven activation system distorts time and space, that can be used by clever "gamers" to play a game that is unsatisfying to me.

In a second case, there was an attack on two wings and the attacker had many more units than the defender. The attacker, by exploiting his initiative and larger number of units, [say on the east side of the battle] exhausted the defender's chance to respond. He did a lot of moves with multiple small units on the east flank, where there was a weak, ill-jointed spoiling attack (at best) and then made some broad strokes at the end of the turn on the other [west] flank, which the defender was unable to counter- since he was out of move options. My view is that the card-driven activation system allowed the attacker to warp continuous time, (as we know it), and burn up the defenders chances (time) to defend on the west, by being a good "gamer" with a lot of moves in the east.

Although the card-driven system results that I have seen, do give some "blur of battle" to the wargames, I do not like to have to spend my energy on the "gamey" side of figuring out a strategy around these. To each his own.

Another

cf:
Oh Dear Not Another Lobotomy
21 May 2012 4:32 p.m. PST
"sorry, but I just want the wargame to be grounded on trying to apply military principles, rather than gaming card-counting in various guises."

I like things to be grounded in reality, also. Especially critiques.

So I take it you never could come up with any specific examples of actual games and rules that backed up all your claims and the negative things you said?

Sorry for all your recent operations, I hope your recoveries are doing well.

I really can't answer your questions explicitly, as I am not an expert on any of the card-based systems and did not write down exact explicits on any of the germain game that I have played over the last 2-10 years, mainly at conventions. I mention some of the "gesh, that doesn't make sense or seem fair" things that I experienced. I'm sure these were not from the game system that you are a proponent of.

From memory, I recall one case where a unit was carefully emplaced in a central defensive position and the opponent zinged 3-4 minor units across its front, into really irriating positions from which they could cause serious mischif. The defender did not waste his fire on them because he was eyeing a powerful unit directly in his front, who could march directly on him. I think that in a real situation, those minor units would be scared shxxless to have darted there and could not have occupied the ground in front of the defender at the same time that the big attacking unit. (who ulitmiately did advance and charge into contact). I don't remember the rule set, but it just appeared way to "gamey" to me. I think the basic principle is that the card-driven activation system distorts time and space, that can be used by clever "gamers" to play a game that is unsatisfying to me.

In a second case, there was an attack on two wings and the attacker had many more units than the defender. The attacker, by exploiting his initiative and larger number of units, [say on the east side of the battle] exhausted the defender's chance to respond. He did a lot of moves with multiple small units on the east flank, where there was a weak, ill-jointed spoiling attack (at best) and then made some broad strokes at the end of the turn on the other [west] flank, which the defender was unable to counter- since he was out of move options. My view is that the card-driven activation system allowed the attacker to warp continuous time, (as we know it), and burn up the defenders chances (time) to defend on the west, by being a good "gamer" with a lot of moves in the east.

Although the card-driven system results that I have seen, do give some "blur of battle" to the wargames, I do not like to have to spend my energy on the "gamey" side of figuring out a strategy around these. To each his own.

I yield to the chaos, but I'm not confused.

Sam, you're a bad person. First you invent a game with 'imagi-nation' rules when an imagination needs no rules, then you invent a game that takes away all the guilt from a player because he has no investment in the results they obtain.

Shame on you.

We're not punished for our sins, but by them.

Bottom Dollar

I think we are using the same words with slightly different interpretations. I don't mean 'confusion' in the sense of a commander not knowing where his units are, how strong they are, or whatever, but rather in the sense that once he orders them to do something, they are out of his 'control'. They may march or attack when/as they are ordered. Or they may not for reasons OUT OF HIS CONTROL. And until he can amend his orders, those units are out of his control. Now as a game player, how can you represent that? Movement/initiative chits? Command ratings/ranges? Die rolls? Cards? Go back to Eylau: Napoleon KNOWS that it is snowing. Does he think for a moment that his magnificent French army will get lost in a blizzard? Maybe. Or maybe not. He was a genius, not a clairvoyent. So how to represent that in a scenario? Every time a unit moves, roll a six-sided die: 1 or 2 go left 45 deg., 3 or 4 go straight, 5 or 6 go 45 deg. right? Or let the Russian player flip a 'confusion' card? The mechanism is different, the result the same.

Aside from cards, I don't need to defend Sam either, he's a big boy. But as he pointed out the cards in Maurice have two functions, as events and as movement enablers. I don't think their use as random events have too huge an impact. Either you are a good 'commander' and are in control of your army and are able to respond to sudden reverses of fortune, or you're not and your army falls into chaos.

LOL

There's an even bigger point that some people are missing here when they talk about odds, coordinated attacks, etc. In warfare commanders do not actually know the odds, they can only make a guess based on their partial knowledge of a situation as to what the odds actually are. For instance an infantry sergeant in WWII decides that the odds of his men making it across a field ar epretty good, but then when they're halfway across a machien gun position open sup on them. The odds of making it accross that field are now very poor indeed. This is why in real life squads move in bounds, with overwatch positions. This is why real commanders keep a reserve (except Lee sometimes…). I think a lot of this discussion of control has more to do with peoples personal need for it manifested into a sort of un-ending riddle on the table top, and that at heart this discussion is more philosophical and psychological than it has anything to do with the games at hand. The old style bean-counting Empire games remind me of a short story Roberto Bolano wrote in Nazi Literature in the America's, about a fascistic American wargames designer who plots out the mechanics of a 'what-if' Nazi rule in America down to the literal nuts and bolts in a gigantic, absurdly sprawling works that really don't mean anything in the end anyway.

The basic fact is that the only way you can create a non-distorted wargame is to have a ref and a blind system where you role play a character, a general of whatever rank, and have orders brought to you and then send order sback through the ref. There's no other way to do it, and a detail oriented, IGYG system is no more or less abstracted and gamey than Sam's card system. What Sam has succeeded in doing is creating somehting new and interesting.

BTW- I want to add that I am in no way calling anyone on here either a Nazi or a control freak.

FatherOfAllLogic,
I mean commander in the multiple sense of the word, not the singular. The division commander gives the order to attack to his brigade commanders, the brigade commanders translate that to their battalion commanders, and the battalion commanders translate that to their company commanders and during the attack ALL of them are SIMULTANEOUSLY involved in commanding to making sure the attack is made and if something different or unexpected happens ALL are ready to issue new commands at whatever the echelon to alter the plan … or their part in it… etc…etc… So, the entire unit IS always in command and under someone's collective control unless the enemy does something which breaks that command and control or does something which causes the unit to fail a Die Roll.

Sure, in high risk situations set up a mechanic to roll to see IF you get hit with a "the hits the fan card". I've seen similar mechanics work in ASL. For instance, when you're parachuting squads on to the board you roll for drift and I believe there was a die roll procedure whereby you COULD land way off the mark. Offboard artillery spotting was similar with randomly generated directions. Another thing was the ‘berserk' roll whereby a unit just stood up and charged the nearest enemy without regard for the consequences. I saw that happen to an opponent's key MG nest and his best 10-2 leader went berserk and got the entire 3 squads he was with to charge down the hill with him into a hail of MG fire. The game was over, but my opponent said it was mainly his fault for putting all of his eggs in one basket!

In any case, a single commander still has control of his units actively or passively the VAST MAJORITY of the time… and if they don't they're not going to be in command for very long unless they're holding command by some aristocratic privilege… in which case someone else is probably calling the shots for them. Moreover, actively amending orders, dispositions or making a change can be as simple as having a bugle call made or galloping over or perhaps a subordinate commander saw it first and made the change himself. It's not as though commanders gave their orders, set the men in the attack or the defense and then sat back to have tea and biscuits because their job was finished for the day. Regardless, most wargames don't try to recreate the single commander b/c even when a single commander issues his orders and sits back in physically passive control, simulating that experience makes for an extremely boring game. Instead, they recreate several commanders working together simultaneously as a UNIT---as it happened the VAST MAJORITY of the time—with the human player calling all of their shots, taking all of their risks and rolling the dice for THEM because THAT is much more FUN.

Instead, they recreate several commanders working together simultaneously as a UNIT---as it happened the VAST MAJORITY of the time—with the human player calling all of their shots, taking all of their risks and rolling the dice for THEM because THAT is much more FUN.
---------------
presumably on that basis you wouldn't be a fan of Black Powder then where orders often don't get through and troops sit on their backsides (as that bugle call wasn't heard amid all the noise or that ADC met a cannonball and the order never got through). I also think that depending on the army the idea that people used their initiative at lower levels may not always be the case – they were given an order and carried on until they carried out or were all dead or had run. I still think (having played such games for years) that the, in effect, hive mind approach where btns start reacting to things that are happening behind the enemy battle line that only (even possibly) the CinC could see, whilst it gives a game where everyone is moving or maneuvering all the time, does not give the right feel (for me)

"presumably on that basis you wouldn't be a fan of Black Powder then where orders often don't get through and troops sit on their backsides"

You said it, not me.

That might simulate what an untrained civilian would 'feel' like if by some stroke of luck or mischance they got time warped back to command in the horse and musket period. Of course, they wouldn't want to get a command in the army where orders didn't get through very often, the bugle calls weren't heard and the ADC's were met with cannonballs as soon as they stepped on the field.

Just to poke my nose in again….. weird stuff does happen, SOMETIMES. It is not the norm.

That might simulate what an untrained civilian would 'feel' like if by some stroke of luck or mischance they got time warped back to command in the horse and musket period. Of course, they wouldn't want to get a command in the army where orders didn't get through very often, the bugle calls weren't heard and the ADC's were met with cannonballs as soon as they stepped on the field.
--------------
I don't understand the 'untrained civilian' bit?
We seem to have different views on the battlefield, as certainly in the periods I game battles were replete with allies choosing not to engage, cavalry impetuously charging off or decding to rceive an enemy charge at the halt (due to a doctrine that no gamer now would ever think was sensible and rarely even worked then!) etc. Don't get me wrong, I have gamed for years the style of 'they're my troops and I decide where they go' with the whole army moving off on the left foot, shortening their stride when they spot enemy reserves moving behind the battle line and suddenly deciding to stop just out of charge range etc. Given that we are are not simulating military history 100% then things like movements behind the battle line will always be difficult to recreate (if you were gaming Waterloo and saw the French Lancers moving into place then you would be a idiot to launch the Union Brigade at the French infantry)- its just that I think the 'I am all 3 levels of command' approach just makes the gamer too much of an eyeball in the sky and dice rolls for orders (given that in BP 3/4 of the time the order goes off) or event cards (as long as not over done) slightly rebalance the game from the only chance element being what dice you roll in melees, shooting and morale and troops otherwise moving to the general's whim

Bottom Dollar

Sorry but I just can't wrap my head around the impression I get from your comments that you believe that a chain-of-command almost always worked and that commanders almost always had their troops under control and that 'the plan' never went belly-up.

And ok, at any given level, maybe at most times, a commander was in 'control' of his forces, but at what level are you gaming a scenario. If you're 'commanding' a corps, do you, as a player, always get to control the efforts of every battalion at all times? Plans never go awry? The battalions always do as told when told? And you view this as 'realistic'? I agree it might be fun and give you as the player the most flexibility to win, but it is not realistic.

For my own part, this debate, largely between Bottom Dollar and GNrep is all well and good, but it's on the wrong foot. The debate has largely become focused on the ability of generals to get their troops to do what they wished. That question can be settled I think, in that generals will usually get their troops to do what they want, except in rare cases, and the cases are rare where they don't. Even on the the battlefield troops usually do as they are told.

Where I see the Clauswitzian "fog of war" intruding is in the actions of the enemy and in things happening which the general never dreamed of, and the problem here is it involves the expectation of sincerity. What I mean is that quite often, far more often than generals being unable to get their own troops to do what they want, they are confronted with situations they never dreamed of or did not account for at all, (and I am using caps here for emphasis, not to shout) SITUATIONS THEY REASONABLy COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXPECTED TO ANTICIPATE.

A few examples. A general plans for his right wing to engage the enemy left flank by marching across what looks like a grassy meadow. The troops, when they get to it, find it's a marsh and cannot advance.

A general believes the enemy force is to his south and east, and does not know that at this moment half the enemy army is lined up on his exposed open left flank.

A general believes that he is attacking the enemy left flank, but what he does not know is it is the enemy center and that the enemy there has strengthened his position with field works in a woods and has studded his front lines with guns.

A general moves to cut off an enemy who is retreating, but he is not retreating at all. He has simply moved his own position to strike the enemy while he is on the march.

All of these are situations garnered from history amoung countless hundreds. All of them COULD be used in a table top game-- provided-- the GM or Umpire lies. For example, in each case as the one player attempts to advance across the swamp etc., he says "Oh wait a minute- that's not a plain open field like it looks like, but an impassable swamp and slaps down the terrain in front of the wishing to advance wing.

This represents history EXACTLY but it would cause extreme emotions and much bad feeling to actually implement it. Same way, if the one general was told that he was trying to race across the table top to get to the crossroads to capture the empty town through which the enemy army was to escape, and halfway through the enemy army appeared within contact on his own flank while he was strung out in column, and the GM says to the now flanked player "SURPRISE! THIS IS ROSSBACH AND YOU'RE THE FRENCH."

While wonderfully accurate for representing history it's not likely to leave a good taste in people's mouths and make a generally unpalatable game. Absolutely NONE Of this has anything to do with control or getting your units to do what you want them to or with but with straight out "OOPS" I didn't know that." The problem is that the gamers assume they are being given the straight story from the get go, or AT LEAST are being told that things may not be what they seem. I simply ask you to consider how you would feel being on the receiving end of one of thess.

I think to bring this sort of uncertainty into games we have concentrated on NOT trying to make the game given the mistake, but to provide a vehicle, luck driven, by which the situation can be set up so that such things not "can happen" but can be "justified" to be happen. General X for example orders a unit of hussars to reconnoiter that meadow. The roll to do so does not go through. This simply gives the general no information, and he is allowed to proceed without reconnoiter or try at some future date and hold up the attack until then. The point is we are attempting to throw the guilt for the mistake back on the general AND JUSTIFY IT as his own lack of attention or not taking precautions. This assumes of course that ALL such things in real life could be avoided, but more, that it seems unjust and inequitable to cast one general in the role of a Patsy. Believe me NO amount of compensatory victory conditions are going to make up for it.

For me, the question of the place of chance (uncertainty) in a miniatures war-game – whether determined by cards, dice, or both – is answered by the following quote attributed to Julius Caesar:

"People think that Mars alone rules the battlefield. But, in fact, Zeus has decreed that Mars must share authority with Fortuna [Roman goddess of luck]. Neither is dominant. Both must be appeased."

I understand that Sun Tzu says something similar in his Art of War.

For me, it's a question of balance; of historical accuracy (insofar as such a thing can be achieved on a table top with painted miniature soldiers) versus playability i.e. how much fun the game is. I've been frustrated playing miniatures war games where chance is so marginal that you're really putting on an historical re-enactment, not playing a game. But I have been equally frustrated by miniatures war games where chance is so dominant that I might as well be playing Snakes and Ladders with my granddaughter. I favor miniature war-game rules that strike a satisfactory balance between the two.

I favor miniature war-game rules that strike a satisfactory balance between the two.
-------------------
i'd completely agree with that – my interest in dice and card driven orders/activation has come from playing too many games in the past where the troops behaved as if they all had earpieces and were on Horse Guards – seeing a 'barbarian' type army moving forward in perfectly dressed lines like the Prussian Army looks wrong (but of course perhaps a Prussian 7YW army should have a very high liklihood of being able to keep nice and symmetrical)

Almost all the scenarios I do for our club are historically based. When you are planning a scenario like Malvin Hill, Pickett's Charge or the Alamo. Where it is clear one side is going to win the BATTLE. That doesn't mean they will win the GAME. You adjust the victory conditions so both sides have a chance to win.

I run Boer War scenarios and they are always based on an actual battle. The Boers really (despite what most people believe) have little chance to win most of the battles. However if you give them a realistic goal to accomplish they might win the game.

I usually give the British points base on terrain captured and the Boers get that plus points for causing casualties. The Boers win about as many games as the British but rarely win a battle.

As far as card based games for actual battles, I had that experience with Piquet. Never again will we ever play those rules again. Even though I won the game, I will not play those rules. Any card based wargame will have to overcome the Piquet bias. But if you liked Piquet you are probably more incline to give other card base games a try.

The big exception to the rule is TSATF which we all enjoy. But using those rules for colonial skirmish is a long way from using other card activation rules for larger scale Napoleonics or ACW etc. Not sure I want to try anything like that after Piquet.

To respond to everyone I agree completely with what OSchmidt said.
For a game like Johnny Reb, at the end of the Mark Orders Phases each brigade, division or corps commander could be required to take a 2d6 roll for Grand Tactical Order Receipt. For instance, on an 11 or 12 your opponent gets to change any one of your unit's orders to ‘Conditional Hold'. They would be cumulative, so if a side with 4 commanders rolls four 11's or 12's your opponent gets to change four of your units to "CH".