"Who is still using written orders in games?" Topic

Hi everyone,
Lately I have heard a few people criticising the use of written orders in Napoleonic gaming, usually along the lines of it being old-fashioned/time-comsuming etc.
So I was wondering, do many of you still use written orders in the Command phases of your games? If so, how do you do it? If you don't like to game this way, what are your reasons?
Personally I like to use written orders in my games because it captures the period feel very well.

Just to be clear, what I mean by written orders is that the player has to physically write down an order on a bit of paper and wait for it to be 'delivered' by a staff-officer to his human or non-human subordinate Generals.

I don't.

If they add to your level of make-believe in thinking that what you are doing is in any way "realistic", go with it!

Yes, but I'm finding that it takes two weeks to a month to get them…

Yes,

I do.

But I make it clear that these need to be brief.

I also have rules that limit the nature of orders and what information may be included in them.
I have an orders form; an aid to play, which can cut down on time spent writing.

As for them being an old-fashioned gaming practice, maybe it is, but not all old ideas are bad ones.

In actual fact, the time spent writing is not that long and besides orders tend not to be not issued at every game turn – it would be most chaotic if you did this anyhow.

I have streamlined my own combat and morale rules to compensate for this use of player`s time; it gives player`s in big games time and space to consider the command and control issues that they should be interested in if they are playing a corps or an army commander`s role.

I jot down simple orders in my WW2 games. Nothing very involved. It's useful for command and control rules.

Yes. Written briefly with a rule based action verb coupled with an objective. E.G. Attack: French Brigade at Rolica; Hold position at bridge over Tagus.

Unless the commander in chief is within earshot (command distance)a messenger must be sent with the order using the prescribed movement, so, it may take time to get the message/order to the brigade commander. The brigadier may only act IAW his orders or make roll in the hope of using own initiative.

The use of orders is a realistic replication for the need to plan a campaign/battle rather than the inevitable, instant reaction to everything, the meeting engagement and slug fest; also to mitigate the birds eye view.

Depends what you mean old boy.

Back to the late 60's where each move is mapped out a la Grant or Featherstone, then definitely no.

If you mean something more realistic then yes; brigades are given orders as to where they are to deploy and what they are to do.

They are mechanisms for changes orders and the delays for their implementation.

This stops the 'helicopter with radio' responses so common in I-go-u-go gaming.

I would point out that there is normally a staff conference before as to the general plan. The C-i-C will issue orders to his subordinates. Independent commanders may get to write their own based on their briefing from the Umpire. We have had cases of commanders issuing their orders on the basis of their understanding of the briefing, rather than reading what the C-i-C issued. Hilarity has ensued.

I always assumed that written orders went out of style because they require a referee, and the trend in recent gaming history was to get away from requiring a neutral arbiter / game master / referee, etc., in order to get everybody playing and in order to lower the bar to access (i.e., games that don't require a referee are usually less work to set up or manage the game, easier to do a pickup game or just put something together on the fly.)

Over the years I tried a few games with "orders" systems (written, chits, and others) that didn't require a referee, and it was fairly pointless because the orders can't be verified or mandated, so it's "everybody do as you want." And if you allow the enemy to see them, then you've just given him the command helicopter with radio plus mind-reading device.

I have used them from time-to-time in solo games – especially map games, the idea being that I write 3 separate orders for different formations for both sides, then dice for which orders each side is going to adopt. Then I play them out until it reaches a 'decision point' in the George Jeffrey sense.

Regards

Hello TelesticWarrior!

It seems like your just buying into an illusion that fits your image of Napoleonic warfare. Like John says, nothing is wrong with that if it works for you.

I think I've played just about every type of written order system possible. Fully handwritten, short clear objectives, symbols, just circle the objectives, draw your orders on a map, etc.

The first problem is indeed time, some players are pretty quick while others just ponder forever. You will spend anywhere from 2-10 minutes a turn on this. New players always take 10 minutes or more.

The next problem is the actual system you use, they are always a compromise and there are always players who want to do something different or out of the box sort of speak. More time is always lost here as well as you try and resolve the issue.

Another problem is tracking the orders, when were they issued, to whom and when did he get them and how long does it take for his forces to respond, etc.

A major problem is the "Giant General" with the "birds eye view". Players have this information and use it to write very unrealistic orders which clearly defeats the whole exercise of writing orders in the first place. Yes you can try and temper this with where were you when you got this information to write that order, etc. But your always under the gun trying to sort this out.

Remember to have a reasonable order system you also have to track all information and reports for everything that was or was not seen or known by every decision making commander on the field. In some games this is not so hard, while others are a nightmare. Good luck with that one.

Finally there is the rule police that will constantly challenge players on their ability to have written such and such an order. Often discovered after a game or looking at the other sides orders. Some times their valid other times it's just sour grapes. Regardless it takes it away from the game.

I think you have to come to terms that no matter what, it's simply a game mechanic and it's no closer to the real thing then your firing charts, etc. Clearly it's not needed for a lot of players while others feel it's critical. Neither side is wrong.

The best system I've seen for orders is the "Tempo" system used by Baccus in their rules. I'm presently writing a set for them that includes this system. It's certainly more abstract then conventional order systems and it's not even an actual order system, it's more of a control system. The concept is brilliant, as it does satisfy a lot of players who feel some type of control is required and written orders, markers, etc., just don't work efficiently. If you want you can even piggyback an order system on top of it, but after you have experienced it most people don't see any need for that.

Best regards,

Glenn

No we don't use them except for one small exception in "Fields of Honor" you need to write down what unit is going to charge which unit. Other than that I don't like using them.

It slows the game down considerably, it doesn't make any more enjoyable or realistic and since we don't have a referee because everyone wants to participate. I really don't like having to take your general figure and marching it over to the other general in order to talk to the guy standing right next to you.

I look at gaming as a team sport, part of the fun is the interaction and group strategy. I find it just silly that you can't talk to the person standing right next to you.

Having said that, we have played games where you use an order chit each turn as in "Johnny Reb" and "Mr. Lincoln's War" does that count?

Another echo of the greatness of the Past.

I'd love to try the "written orders" in games like Spearhead but never found a group wanting to try them.

We almost always play with written orders of some sort, and we do so in the vast majority of cases without a game master. Put simply, we trust each other to carry through in the spirit of the game – why would you game with people you don't trust to obey the rules?

Their use adds immensely to the quality of the game in any but the simplest situations, and requires very little effort. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about, or why people wouldn't want to use them – unless they just want a free-for-all go-gettum game, which can be fine.

Cheers,

Christopher

We use two types of written orders depending – - -. The first type is in our AWI house rules, each player writes the next moves for each of his units. Then all units are moved, both sides at the same time. This actually speeds up the game as players are not reacting to their opponent's last move.

The second type is when each player writes out a set of General Orders for the Day. IE – The first brigade will take and hold cross roads. Units are then to me handled as be fitting these written orders. The brigade ordered to take the cross roads can't pull out of line and move to the other side of the table. Yes there are methods to change orders and such during the game. But each commander is expected to write orders based on his plan of battle, before the game starts.

Playing solo I don't (since it's all in my mind who am I fooling) but think I should get more detailed in objectives, and I like Whirlwind's suggestion.

Good heavens no! I have dumped several rulesets, or rewritten them because of the stupidity of writing orders.

I really hated that about March Attack. Fun, fast ruleset that got WAY bogged down with order writing.

Please God no written orders or order chits. Why slow down a perfectly fun game with needless things. I play games, not simulations. You are just going to move your units how you want to anyway, so why pretend that you wont and also waste time writing orders or putting order chits out.

I have a three to four hour time limit on playing time. So anything that reduces my time of pushing figures around and rolling dice is something I don't need.

Also you as a player have more info then any real commander ever had. Why do you think the Germans did so well in several wars, they told the guy commanding the troops take the hill and left it up to him on how he did. They didn't micromanage him with a set script of moves so that he did this at this time and that time.

Probably why I like games where you command Brigade and larger size units. I don't care how the Brigade command takes the hill, I just point tell him to take the hill and he moves his men to take the hill- I move the unit and roll some dice to see the results. I don't care if he sends out skirmishers or moves in columns or lines. All I care about are results. Where is the fun in writing orders and then waiting for them to be delivered and acted upon. Why waste the time, it is just a game after all.

For set piece battles each side has written orders in the historical manner deliniating responsibilities and objectives. This is necessary to avoid the abovementioned deployments by sattelite intelligence. Once deployments and objectives are written, the field can be set up. For meeting engagements, decision points and orderwriting are limited by command and control guidelines.

After the first shots, there are ever only a few decision points that require written orders- It hardly bogs things down.

Obviously, actual Napoleonic commanders did not reissue new orders every 15 minutes- If they did they would ruin the confidence and morale of men and officers.

In our rules, constant maneuvering, formation changes and the like take a toll on morale and fatigue, all tracked by the computer. You are almost always better off keeping it simple- as it was then.

Then, under the command & control guidelines we use, there are only cetain times when commanders may attempt (the key word is 'attempt') to react to threat level changes at any level or change the objectives of a brigade or division- All this serves to portray the difficulty of 'changing horses in midstream' on a period battlefield, and the challenge it sets up for the players is one that makes for a better game- I wouldn't do without it; It would be like trading chess for checkers-same board, way different level of planning and skill required.

We left off the attitude of wanting or being able 'to do what we want with the units anyway' a long time ago.

You can always talk to the person standing next to you- just not about someting on the table his historical counterpart would have no way of knowing. Far from being silly, this actually elevates the conversation from the obvious to the abstract and philosophical.

In the end, there is little time spent writing or determining actions, as opposed to time spent in action!

Of course, yes. Im a big fan of written orders for large games (> 2,000 castings). It may be very old school in today's terms, but none of the newer systems come close to the excitement in a system that uses simultaneous movement with written orders. There is no need for elaborate command/control or activation rules either. Those are the mechanisms that I find cumbersome in large games. I have also found that the same number of turns can be played in the same amount of time with games of the same scale regardless of the mechanics.

Simple to execute. Our rules let one side call time if they feel the other side is dawdling, but I haven't seen that as a problem in years. No arguments about intent since a player can be referred to their orders to verify it. If someone appears to be fudging, a player can ask that the other player's commander-in-chief to review the orders and correct the execution if necessary. That's another mechanism I haven't seen needed in years.

Since movement and, consequently, fire and melee are simultaneous, everyone is active all the time. No sitting and waiting for others to make up their minds and act.

I play a game whose maneuver units are battalions and squadrons. I find that players who spend time trying to optimize each unit tend to lose. Playing well and winning requires a player to visualize the larger formations of brigades, divisions, and when necessary corps, and write the orders accordingly. And oh yes, I game in 25-28mm with a 1:20 roster strength, so the visual aspect can be grand.

Rick

One of the main rationales behind written orders for horse and musket/rifle era games is recreating the lag time between decisions and actually implementing them. [This is irregardless of the 200 ft General issue] Personally, I don't like written orders for the reasons others have mentioned, but am not enamoured of the alternatives either.

1. Tempo/Command Chits etc. type of command control produces the reverse of the actual command process and decision-making experience. A commander would have orders for the battle which every command would attempt to carry out, and then a CinC would issue orders to adjust to changing circumstances during the battle.

What he didn't do was divvy out a limited cashe of orders to some, but not other commands, and he certainly didn't know which orders would be followed after he divvied them out.

He didn't go,"Well, I can only send out three orders, so I'll have Divisions 1, 3 and 7 move this half hour, then 2, 4 and 5 thirty minutes later. #6 will just have to wait."

No matter how you rationale the process it has commanders issuing some orders, knowing they will be followed for the most part, when actual commanders issued everyone orders and hoped they'd all be followed, not knowing how successfully until AFTER the orders had been implemented. And he didn't get to choose which ones.

2. The chit systems such as Johnny Reb is more for simultaneous movement, commitment before movement rather than an actual command system. Generals at the corps or Division level didn't change orders every fifteen minutes for all regiments. It does have units commit to actions before carrying them out, but it is far too fine grained for any actual command system. Orders were given and troops attempted to carry them out until stopped by the enemy or with further orders, which could come after hours of battle, not every fifteen minutes.

3. Card-driven games are fun, particularly for the unknown, variety and chance they introduce in game play, but as a command system, they don't mean much at all, particularly when it produces more of a Russian-roulette command system,"Gosh, what do I have this turn?" process, rather than actual orders chosen from a wide range of possibilities, being given to a functioning command system.

4. Without a command and control system [such as found in Volley & Bayonet], you do have telepathic generals, able to have their will applied over the entire table, reacting to all circumstances. But it is simple. I always get a kick out of playing V&B because it is specificaly stated to be an 'army-level' game, but 95% of the rules are brigade/regiment level tactics. A measly 5% are given to all command issues, wich are basically command radius and command exhaustion. I enjoy playing it, but really~

The one thing that written orders attempt to introduce into a game, a command commitment to a plan and the limited/time-delay circumstances of discovering and reacting to changing battlefield conditions simply hasn't been playably captured by a set of rules yet. Mike C.s game comes close, but then you have a very fine-grained time phase of 4 minutes.

Of course, if my group wants to play written orders [and they have], I'm still game.

Bill

Two very different schools of thought here!

Excellent thread.

I must say I dump a horse and musket ruleset if at least 1/3 of the rules are not command & control. I have never found written orders quite right because of the huge possibility for interpretation. What I wan´t is rules that imposes a delay from the decision to advance and engage, to the actual advance. Limits the possibility for maneuvering when you are trying to engage and makes huge flanking movements more difficult than straight foreward advances. Our houserules have a complete abstraction of orders, that works like this without having to write down orders.

Basically command formations (usually a brigade or small division) have an officer who by his position marks the deployment area of the formation and by his direction indicates which direction the formation will advance if a maneuavre order is given. So players line up their commands and wait for the word go. Dice rolls indicates delay for orders. Once given the command will advance without stops or formation changes untill engaged (400 meters) or the player stops it. If a command is to be redirected that is a separate order (which also can be delayed in activation) which allows you to turn the officer and reposition the troops.
Once commands are engaed units move freely within command distance of the officer who can only move straight forward or back).

This system esentially makes the player deploy their troops and commit to where they will advance when and if the order go is given. If troops are to be comitted in another direction it will require extra orders to turn them and therefore delay them.

Perhaps we should distinguish between the writing of orders for every unit turn by turn that was common in the days of simultaneous movement, which was largely to prevent 'cheating' by reacting immediately to events that would not have been visible to a real general, but were to the players' god-like view; and battle orders to the commanders of divisions or corps, which remain in force until executed or changed by the army commander because of new circumstances, and communications with detached forces.

IGO-UGO and card activation systems et al have removed the need for the former, but the latter should be portrayed in some way, so that formations continue to try to follow their intial orders rather than react to every single event.

One advantage of written orders is that they are invaluable when writing a report of the game afterwards.

The system in Shako (arrows on maps) works pretty well, and is a lot easier than arguing about order interpretations.

This is all part of that old debate about Process vs. Outcome.

If Process is the most important part of the game for somebody, then he tends to think about command as in: "I, the player, need to be doing something that closely resembles what my historical counterpart did… or else it's not historical."

But if Outcome is what matters, then you can be happy with all sorts of command mechanisms, as long as the end result is something that appeals to your sense of historical make-believe. For example, "Black Powder." They managed to come up with a very simple system for committing units to actions by having the player do exactly the opposite of what the historical action "ought" to be. That is: you tell your opponent in advance what you plan to do with Unit X, then you roll to see how that worked out, and then you have to carry through as best you can, with your previously-stated intention, and your opponent is there to keep you honest.

This is a great example of a wargame activity that gets a historically-reasonable outcome (your troops must obey your orders, even when changing game circumstances mean they can't.) Yet, the game activity (telling your enemy what you want to do and how you want to do it), is totally ahistorical.

It's simple, it has the old-fashioned appeal of a spoken order, it doesn't require any writing, and it gets the job done. But it rankles the Process Guys, who think, "But wait a minute… Napoleon didn't tell Wellington in advance that he was going to move the 2nd Division…"

1. Tempo/Command Chits etc. type of command control produces the reverse of the actual command process and decision-making experience. A commander would have orders for the battle which every command would attempt to carry out, and then a CinC would issue orders to adjust to changing circumstances during the battle.

What he didn't do was divvy out a limited cashe of orders to some, but not other commands, and he certainly didn't know which orders would be followed after he divvied them out.

He didn't go,"Well, I can only send out three orders, so I'll have Divisions 1, 3 and 7 move this half hour, then 2, 4 and 5 thirty minutes later. #6 will just have to wait."

No matter how you rationale the process it has commanders issuing some orders, knowing they will be followed for the most part, when actual commanders issued everyone orders and hoped they'd all be followed, not knowing how successfully until AFTER the orders had been implemented. And he didn't get to choose which ones.

Phil Barker, the doyen of PIP/Tempo Point etc. systems, said as much (effectively agreeing with Sam):

Our command and movement system is arbitrary, but its results are very similar to those from elaborate systems incorporating written orders, transmission by a limited number of messengers or signals, and then testing interpretation by the recipient. In any case, as Clausewitz points out, confusion is the normal state in battle, good staff work merely reducing it to a barely acceptable level. The function of the command system in a wargame differs from that in a real battle in that it is not used to enable the general to manoeuvre his troops at all, but to prevent him doing so too freely! This we achieve.

IIRC pretty much all of the DBx family of rules have a similar explanation.

Regards

Hello McLaddie (Bill)!

"A commander would have orders for the battle which every command would attempt to carry out, and then a CinC would issue orders to adjust to changing circumstances during the battle."

Although starting orders, plans etc. are optional this is exactly how a Tempo game should work. If yours didn't it was not properly designed.

"What he didn't do was divvy out a limited cashe of orders to some, but not other commands, and he certainly didn't know which orders would be followed after he divvied them out."

The amount you give out can be adjusted. If you want higher limits you can work that in. In all games some players follow orders while other don't. This is no different.

"He didn't go,"Well, I can only send out three orders, so I'll have Divisions 1, 3 and 7 move this half hour, then 2, 4 and 5 thirty minutes later. #6 will just have to wait."

You can easily have them all move at the same time if that's your intention. It's all in how you design the game. You might want to have your situation for a Spanish army but not a French one. You can build in different abilities for different forces. You can also consolidate your Divisions to act together. It's all up to the game designer.

"No matter how you rationale the process it has commanders issuing some orders, knowing they will be followed for the most part, when actual commanders issued everyone orders and hoped they'd all be followed, not knowing how successfully until AFTER the orders had been implemented. And he didn't get to choose which ones."

I think this applies to every order system.

I suspect were probably talking about two different Tempo systems. My recent experience is with Baccus. It's been so long since I played a Phil Barker design I don't even remember how they worked.

Best regards,

Glenn

Right on Florida Tory!

Likewise Sparta.

You conmmit to a plan. Then you see how posible it is to change that plan when it doesn't work. Then you either have an army with an infrastructure and communications system that is flexible, or you lose. Welcome to warfare the way Napoleon played it.

If you play as a team then writing orders are unnecessary. The players on your side will see to it that everyone follows the overall plan. No need to write out orders. "Hey Joe what the heck are you doing, that's not the plan…"

In fact we use to allow time outs. One side calls a timeout and gets the game board to themselves for five minutes. The idea of a team working together to carry out a plan is much more fun than having to follow a rigid set of orders. Why bother playing? If I did write orders there is no way I am letting anyone on the other side look at them.

If I want to consult with the person on my side during a turn then I will. I run the risk of the other side ease dropping. Take the risk if you want. If one of our teammates says something that gives the plan away then I assure you he will here about it. For example "Hey guys I am thinking about charging here, what do you think?"
"You would be better off firing this turn because…"

Written orders. No wonder we have trouble growing the hobby.

You rather make my point about the whole affair.

But Rallynow, with written orders there would be no "giving the game away"!
If you write orders to a subordinate the other side would not see them. If orders are clear then a consultation is not necessary… and if they are misleading or inappropriate – one needs a way to decide how a subordinate (player, or not) responds – I`ve done this, it`s actually not that hard to rule for.
Why bother playing?
This is a good question, because by using written orders, allows players to play the parts of the historical generals who are represented on the gaming table – our interest and involvement is centred on them.
Hopefully, we may cultivate and grow the hobby by devising rules that represent these very simple, real life mechanisms which controlled armies of the period.
Sometimes I think it`s acceptable to "go back" to previous methods, because I have found that more modern, abstract games rules mechanisms just don`t allow for players to do what was done historically.

Great thread so far Gentlemen, keep the comments coming.

Florida Tony & CATenWolde,
I agree with absolutely everything you both said.

IronDuke & MichaelCollins,
You both sound like you have nailed the use of written orders so that the system works very well for you.

Lukhum,
You raise some interesting points, although I would say it is possible to go for both process AND outcome.

John & Glenn,
I never said written orders is more "realistic", I said it can capture more of the period feel. So a little bit of flavour & role-playing is thrown in to the game, the players can put a little bit of "colour" into their orders (or not, its all good).

Great discussion.

A heretic argument: Would a IGOUGO system with long turns (one turn is 1-2 hours) not have all the delay you need.

The prussians atack Placenoit at 1PM. Napoleon cannot react at the same time (because it is not his turn). But in his 3PM turn he can make the counter attack with his Young Guard. The two hours are enough time, that the information would have reached Napoleon and his orders would have reached the Young Guard. No need for a complicated command system.

Decebalus, that's a simple and effective way of dealing with many situations in a highly stylised army-level game. But how would it deal with an active, mobile commander like Wellington, who can ride from one crisis point to another to deliver orders in person?

Within the Prussian turn, to use your example, there would have to be some way of portraying the local reaction by French troops around Plancenoit – one could not simply 'freeze' them because it was 'not their turn'!

Lukhum, you make very valid points. However, it is surely Process that creates period atmosphere, without which one is not really playing the general, but applying analytical tools to decide an Outcome, given information about the situation. In an umpired Kriegsspiel, for example, where it is the umpires who apply rules to determine Outcomes, the players are entirely concerned with Process – observing the enemy, making decisions, giving orders – and it is this that makes it both an effective form of military training and a stimulating and challenging recreational game.

"Would a IGOUGO system with long turns (one turn is 1-2 hours) not have all the delay you need."

Yes, the representation of time is the key point in all of this. The larger increment of time that you use, the less need there is for any sort of literal representation of the transmission of orders.

"But how would it deal with an active, mobile commander like Wellington, who can ride from one crisis point to another to deliver orders in person?"

If your game is about a few small units like individual battalions, then you're not dealing with written orders anyway. In fact, the game table could be the "command range."

The older I get, the more that's my preferred solution: whatever battle or bit of battle that the game is supposed to represent, fits within a certain amount of space, represented by the game table itself. Thus the command system assumes that "your" character (whomever you're supposed to be; a divisional general, a brigadier, whatever) could easily get from any point on the table to any other point, in one "turn."

I'm a big fan of getting as close as possible to "real time." The game's time and space should fit the players' time and space.

The amount you give out can be adjusted. If you want higher limits you can work that in. In all games some players follow orders while other don't. This is no different.

You can easily have them all move at the same time if that's your intention.

Glenn:

I was speaking of Polemos as that is the one you referenced, but that Tempo system is simply Command Points by another name. And in Polemos Tempo does represent the orders given by the CinC. [page 10 of the GdeD Napoleonic version] In their 19th Century rules it is always phrased that "the CinC is allocating Tempo to his generals."

The question is whether contemporary CinCs thought in terms of 'allocating' orders in the ways determined by CP type sytems. The question is whether this mechanism portrays the actual options, decisions, as well as consequences faced by CinCs in issuing orders in some way. Does it model the command and control systems at all?

I have yet to see any evidence that CP systems do, including Polemos' Tempo, and I can provide a lot of evidence that it doesn't.

I think there are a lot of assumptions made about how things worked, rather than actually looking at the processes. For instance, "I did it all for the Lukhum" writes:

Yes, the representation of time is the key point in all of this. The larger increment of time that you use, the less need there is for any sort of literal representation of the transmission of orders.

Well, if your game is about small units like individual battalions, then obviously you'll need a different time assumption, and a different command assumption. If your game is about a handful of small units, then you're not dealing with written orders anyway. In fact, the game table could be the "command range."

Frankly, that's the simplest solution: whatever battle or bit of battle that the game is supposed to represent, fits within a certain amount of space, represented by the game table itself. Thus the command system assumes that "your" character (whomever you're supposed to be; a divisional general, a brigadier, whatever) could easily get from any point on the table to any other point, in one "turn."

I agree that time is the key point [in any simulation how the passage of time is monitored is the backbone of the system].

The question here is how things were done in that time that is the discussion. For example, divisional commanders on down to companies didn't control their units by running from point-to-point. From 1700 to 1900 and beyond they had a much faster system.

So much of CinC systems in the 18th and 19th Century was 'wind them up and let them go'… and go they would until further notice. CPs don't portray that at all. It is more a move this much, wait for orders. Move this much, wait for orders/tempo/CPs. etc.

Best Regards,
Bill

My Napoleonic group is play testing a set of rules that I've been working on the last couple years, it started with written orders but I ditched them for the following reasons:

1) Players hate them.
2) Players are confused by them.
3) Governing and guiding them in written rules is fraught with failure.
4) Many orders were issued verbally anyway…

I replaced written orders with order cards.

An army corps or similar allied force receives 2 cards: Order, Objective
Subordinate formations within that such as divisions or brigades receive 3 cards: Order, Objective & Vector

These cards are provided, Order cards say things like "Assault" or "Defend / Rest" and Objective cards have an icon of a hill or a town on them while Vector cards have a indication of movement on them such as a straight arrow or one curving to the right or left of an obstruction. They are meant to be rough guides as to what the "unit" must do preventing a player from radically changing their plan but allowing for some discussion.

Order cards are placed upside down so people do not know what the opponent is issuing. Players roll for Activation which determines when an order will *happen* expressed in a number of turns. When the given turn comes up the order cards are flipped over and the "unit" starts to take action.

Once an order activates it is active until:

1) The order is achieved, i.e. "Assault the town that direction" and the town is taken.
2) The "unit" can no longer achieve the order, i.e. due to fatigue or a bad morale result an assault is forced to halt or withdraw.
3) A new order is activated.

I had been using Command Points to preclude everything from happening at once by radio control but I felt it a bad solution as historically I am not aware of a commander who said, no no, I will not order Ney to attack because it is more important that Soult attacks! In reality the commander sent both orders hoping and expecting both would happen.

Command Points were used, as they commonly are, to both "buy" orders and to influence how fast the order activated [happened]. Thus removing Command Points left a bit of a hole.

My current thinking is that adjusting the relative activation time for orders combined with adding a simple new mechanic can replace Command Points satisfactorily. Players may choose to Influence an order either Urging or Delaying its activation. This is a single die roll with almost no modifiers and is optional. If you like when your orders are timed to activate, take no action, if you are impatient or need more time for your attack to line up, roll a die. Each player can attempt this once per turn with diminishing returns.

To respond to some of what others have said or concluded, while these Napoleonic rules may or may not ever circulate beyond my local gaming group, the goal is for both process & outcome to bear similarity to what they model.

Cheers,

The Bandit

"General de Brigade Deluxe" rules use limited written orders. The Command in Chief or a Division Commander issues orders to the Brigade Commanders, such as, "Assault – enemy brigade on hill east of crossroads." Now that brigade commander may or may not receive another order for several turns. 2D6 with various modifiers determine if the order is received.

I like the "GdB Deluxe" system. The old "Fire & Steel" rules I previously used required that every unit (battalion, regiment, battery) had a written order for every turn. That was too much.

The "GdB Deluxe" rules to me seem to have the right balance.

God bless,
John T.

Hi bandit. That is actually very similar to ours excpet that we use the command stand of the officer as the vector, the order is then defend or forward in that direction. We then have variable delay in the activation of the orders.

Bandit:

I think what you've put together is closer to what I understand the order process was about. from my reading, a CinC might give a Corps commander a larger directive, to defend or take an area, or several objectives, but from divisions down, the method was basically to have the divisions form up outside enemy cannon [SOP was 1200-1600 yards] and be given a sight objective, whether a body of enemy troops, a church spire, a clump of trees etc., [that vector and objective rolled into one] and released.

The visual objective is what the division and regulating units would align on visually, almost always going directly from jumpoff to objective in a straight line, whether Soult's Corps at Austerlitz, the French 1st Corps at Waterloo, or Longstreet's three divisions at Gettysburg.

Corps commanders would give out those physical targets/visual objectives in relationship to their higher orders. A CinC would give the overall objectives and who would do what [see Napoleon's orders for Oct. 14th, 1806 at Jena], again with each corps pretty much pointed in the right direction and released. At Jena, only Soult's corps didn't go straight north, but his assignment was to flank the Prussians.

Bill

To respond to some of what others have said or concluded, while these Napoleonic rules may or may not ever circulate beyond my local gaming group, the goal is for both process & outcome to bear similarity to what they model.

I should have added, "While remaining approachable and playable to the novice."

Sparta,

I found that since I wanted persistent orders, i.e. an order is good for more than the current turn, it helps to have a card for vector and even more importantly a card for objective to indicate where the player must halt the formation in question.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Hello TelesticWarrior!

"John & Glenn,
I never said written orders is more "realistic", I said it can capture more of the period feel. So a little bit of flavour & role-playing is thrown in to the game, the players can put a little bit of "colour" into their orders (or not, its all good)."

Don't think I ever said that, but I understand what your saying. My basic point is written orders don't really capture anything except problems and game delay. The critical thing here is that for you this illusion of how the period functioned does add "period feel, flavor, role-playing and colour" to your games and that's fine.

I played with written orders for years until I realized it was just another game mechanic. Once you put Napoleonic figures on a good looking battle field you have more then enough "period feel, flavor and colour". You don't need creative writing. I've played hundreds of games without written orders and no one has ever said "we need more period feel, flavor, role-playing and colour". In fact one of the most common comments is "I really feel like I'm walking in the shoes of". Can't get more of a period feel, flavor, colour or role-playing then that.

Some day if you ever drop written orders for something more efficient I'm sure you will see what I'm talking about.

Best regards,

Glenn

Never.

It takes too long to write them, nobody reads them, and nobody obeys them.

Hello Bill (McLaddie)!

"I was speaking of Polemos as that is the one you referenced, but that Tempo system is simply Command Points by another name."

Okay see were on the same page. It's probably been 30 years since I played an old school CP game. Yes their certainly related, but Tempo in the Polemos family of rules is much more sophisticated.

"And in Polemos Tempo does represent the orders given by the CinC. [page 10 of the GdeD Napoleonic version] In their 19th Century rules it is always phrased that "the CinC is allocating Tempo to his generals."

Yes they do represent orders, but also a lot of other things, like supplies, etc. as well.

"The question is whether contemporary CinCs thought in terms of 'allocating' orders in the ways determined by CP type sytems. The question is whether this mechanism portrays the actual options, decisions, as well as consequences faced by CinCs in issuing orders in some way. Does it model the command and control systems at all?"

Obviously C&Cs did not think in terms of points. The system simply translates their basic intentions.

"I have yet to see any evidence that CP systems do, including Polemos' Tempo, and I can provide a lot of evidence that it doesn't."

Okay, I'll bite, what have you got?

"I agree that time is the key point [in any simulation how the passage of time is monitored is the backbone of the system]."

In Polemos there are two things you have to consider, first it's not a simulation, second there is no time scale. It's a sort of VLB type of game.

"The question here is how things were done in that time that is the discussion. For example, divisional commanders on down to companies didn't control their units by running from point-to-point. From 1700 to 1900 and beyond they had a much faster system."

We don't run from point-to-point in our Polemos games.

"So much of CinC systems in the 18th and 19th Century was 'wind them up and let them go'… and go they would until further notice. CPs don't portray that at all. It is more a move this much, wait for orders. Move this much, wait for orders/tempo/CPs. etc."

Although it might seem that way in reality it is generally seamless. It's rare in our games that a force is not able to reach it's objectives. Those that don't it's simply an abstraction to reflect some kind of unexpected difficulty. It's really no different then most other games, the situation is evaluated at the end of each turn.

Best regards,

Glenn

Yes they do represent orders, but also a lot of other things, like supplies, etc. as well.

Hi Glenn:
? How do you know that? I haven't read that anywhere or seen it on the list. The designers certainly can claim to represent anything and everything. The question here is what decisions do they provide the player 'like' those of actual CinCs? Did they include 'supply' and other things? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the goal of such representation is a goal behind any wargame command and control rules.

Obviously C&Cs did not think in terms of points. The system simply translates their basic intentions.

Obviously, but in what terms did they think? They certainly didn't think about of divvying up orders or supplies or effort, or energy or anything else during every period of time represented by the rules.

"I have yet to see any evidence that CP systems do, including Polemos' Tempo, and I can provide a lot of evidence that it doesn't."

Okay, I'll bite, what have you got?

Okay, let's start simple. At Austerlitz, arguably one of Napoleon's finest performances, he issued no orders for the first two hours of the battle [6-9am], then personally released Soult a little after nine, and again for two hours sent no more orders until around 11am.

Jena? He kicked around a Prussian drum a good portion of the battle, and the orders he did issue were far and in between, at times to just one brigade… the same one more than once while not issuing orders to some divisions or corps at all… yet they continued to fight and advance. So how does that compare to the reoccurring command decisions prepresented by the Tempo mechanics?

At no time that I can tell, did Napoleon find himself constrained in issuing orders or 'getting things done.'

In contrast, at Austerlitz, Kutusov spent the first part of his morning, not issuing orders, but trying to untangle a logjam among his columns, and then sending orders later to only some commands in attempting to meet Napoleon's attack, though I can see no reason to believe he couldn't have sent orders to everyone. It wasn't something that required a lot of his time. He spent a good portion of his time moving around and finding out what was going on.

The actual number of orders and which commands were contacted once a battle is engaged is relatively small, and it could be argued that the successful command issues far less orders than the unsuccessful command.

It certainly is an issue of time. Archduke Charles wanted to change his orders to the army on the first Evening of Wagram. He decided he couldn't do it because he simply didn't have enough time to get new orders out to the entire army. He didn't send orders to two corps because he couldn't do five. Getting orders out to an army about the plan of battle was done before the battle began because it couldn't be done during the battle.

In Polemos there are two things you have to consider, first it's not a simulation, second there is no time scale.

Glenn, you and I have very different views on those two things. It seems to me that both design statements are kind of dodging the obvious.

First, ANY artifical system like a game that attempts to mimic some portion of reality past or present, is attempting to simulate. That is a technical statement, not some philosphical proposition.

Second, a time scale might not have been mentioned, but one is implicit in the dynamics, the duration of the game as designed and in the scenarios provided, let alone the unit sizes and movement.

However, neither assertion, whether true or false, has any bearing on this discussion, because it is about what the Tempo/CP system represents--not how much or what should be represented, but whether it represents any aspect of command and issuing orders.

If the game mechanics have no purpose in representing the command experience in some fashion, then there is no point to this discussion.

If, on the other hand, the goal of the Tempo mechanics is an effort to provide players with some of the decision-making challenges faced by actual commanders, that is topic, regardless of time scale or whether it is a simulation. For my money, if the system is meant to portray something of historical command, it is meant to simulate something. Therefore can't avoid technically being a simulation… It also means that the design challenges, methods and concepts of simulation design will be dealt with regardless of whether the designer thinks he is or is not designing a simulation. It's like trying to build a model airplane that flies when denying doing anything similar to or dealing with the same issues as a professional aircraft designer.

We don't run from point-to-point in our Polemos games.

"So much of CinC systems in the 18th and 19th Century was 'wind them up and let them go'… and go they would until further notice. CPs don't portray that at all. It is more a move this much, wait for orders. Move this much, wait for orders/tempo/CPs. etc."

True. That was in regards to I did it all for the Lukhum comment quoted and the time/distance issue in command.

Although it might seem that way in reality it is generally seamless. It's rare in our games that a force is not able to reach it's objectives. Those that don't it's simply an abstraction to reflect some kind of unexpected difficulty. It's really no different then most other games, the situation is evaluated at the end of each turn.

I think you missed my point. Yes, all games go from turn to turn in some fashion. And having played Polemos a number of times, [and enjoyed it] it is generally 'seamless' in play.

What I am saying is that the players are making command decisions based on 'allocation' of orders challenges, repeated every turn for the entire army or force. What the players are asked to think about and decide on each turn regarding 'orders' in no way represents the kind of challenges actual commanders faced, in either the command dynamics or the command decisions facing them. That is true, regardles of the seamless play or that all units can make their objectives.

A game and any participatory simulation is an artifical construct. "It" doesn't do anything. The players make both happen through their game decisions. A simulation is when those decisions have some specific relationship to real decisions faced by real commanders. Not all, just some. I'm simply saying that the Tempo system doesn't offer that--at all, not that Polemos as a whole doesn't.

Best Regards,

Bill

Yes I do not mind using them but as many have stated they need to be very brief, like.

Defend along river line.

Attack and take the crossroads.

Attack and hold such and such town.

Use them at the start of the battle so if a Division was given an order to attack the hill with the crossroads on it.

Then it should be moving in that direction and not towards the woods that had an enemy Division moved into it.

As others have stated this can keep the eye in the sky player charging off to an area of the map that has an enemy that his troops on the ground cannot see.

I think we have several topics working at cross purposes. We seem to be discussing how much detail in order writing do you want.

The way it works with our group is that you have a scenario written out, it tells you among other things what your sides objectives are. The victory conditions if you will.

Before the game starts each side gets the game board to themselves for ten or fifteen minutes to formulate their plan of attack or defense. Typically the side which has identified their goals and what each player's responsibility will have the upper hand. The better organized side will usually do better.

If one side wants to write it all down then fine, if they can do it in their allotted time. But that is rare, you usually can keep your command's mission in your head.

We do not write down orders every turn. We do not restrict conversations what so ever. If you want to pull one of your teammates aside and whisper something then that's fine.

The orders and following the plan is self-regulating. Believe me if one player is not following the plan, he will surely hear about it for sometime.

We really don't want the level of detail of not speaking strategy to one another unless our personal general figures are standing by each other or sending couriers. We just assume that is being worked out and taking place in the abstract.

After a particularly bad turn one side may want the game table to themselves for five minutes to re-evaluate the situation. A council of war being held in the abstract. We just don't play it out in the game itself.

Now if you feel the need to have that level of detail with couriers and writing out orders to add to your suspension of belief, then go for it. But not for us. Too close to having role playing intrude on the game and we don't want to go to the dark side of the hobby.