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

Hi Glenn:

I agree that having all orders written wasn't common practice during a battle… However, I don't think that is the primary reason/or misconception behind written orders. For a two player game, and even multi-player games, there has to be some game method for transmitting specific orders over time, to recreate the basic function and limitations of such verbal and written orders. From what I can tell, written orders in a game are meant to represent both verbal and written orders. It gets players to commit to the orders, and is partly representational in a more direct way with the written communications. That is the point, I think.

Whether that does provide the players with similar dynamics between orders and operations is another question, but I understand the intent of the different approaches with written orders. And yes, the most detailed orders, probably ddelivered in several ways, would be the pre-battle or 'the plan' rather than during the battle. Of course, that makes such pre-game planning a necessary part of Napoleonic gaming, though certainly there are a number of ways to represent that dynamic.

The vast majority of wargames that I have ever played or even seen have the troops lined up either on the table edge or within striking distance. The scale of most of these games leaves very little wiggle room. You mainly fight the enemy that is to your front.

Yes, I agree. I have a collection of photos of different historical battles played on the tabletop, lifted off the web, Borodino, Austerlitz, Albuera, Waterloo, and others. I have stumped all my gaming buddies asking if they can tell which is which by terrain and troop deployments. They can't, every game looks the same… troops lined up on opposite sides of long tables.

While Napoleonic battles are still linear in most ways, and tables to have very definite limits, Of course many of those battles like Borodino and Waterloo were head-on bashing away at the enemy engagements, with little actual maneuver…still, I find such things both funny and unnecessary, regardless of the scale.

I think one motivating factor is the pure joy of seeing hundreds, if not thousands of figures on the table… which lleads to those two long, and deep rows of miniatures facting each other.

Best Regards,

Bill

Hello Bill!

Yes, I realize that some rules are using written orders to cover both written and verbal orders. That just seems odd, using a system that was rarely used (written) over the most common one (verbal). It's even stranger when they claim it's historical. We dumped written orders years ago for verbal ones, and I don't recall one problem.

We also have been amused over most of the so called historic battles as well. The figures are fantastic, the terrain is often very good looking. It's just there is no real correlation between the configuration of the actual battle (including the O/B) and the table top presentation. It's blatantly obvious that any orders other then attack are redundant.

I recall playing in a mega 15mm game some 30 years ago. I forget what the historical battle was. It was on a table roughly 5 x 20 feet. The figures were packed in side by side just inside the table edge and were mainly two units deep. Every player had a written order which were mainly of two types hold or attack. The attack order had to be activated by your commander. Regardless you just fought the guy across from you. The winners were basically the side with the best rollers. It's sad (at least for me) to see that a lot of players are still playing games like this.

Best regards,

Glenn

Yes, I realize that some rules are using written orders to cover both written and verbal orders. That just seems odd, using a system that was rarely used (written) over the most common one (verbal). It's even stranger when they claim it's historical. We dumped written orders years ago for verbal ones, and I don't recall one problem.

While I agree that written orders don't make sense, I think this is a bad argument. We use die rolls combined with mathematical formulas to represent musket fire. Using a written order to represent a verbal order is a way closer abstraction than what we commonly use for other aspects.

We dumped written orders years ago for verbal ones, and I don't recall one problem.

Likely neither do the people who use written orders in all their games. People choose what works for their group, therefore none of us continue to do something that we feel is broken and we can all make this same statement replacing "written orders… with verbal" for whatever it is we each use.

Tabletop wargames mostly grandtactical and/or tactical. Therefore the amount of strategic maneuver is highly limited. I suppose this is why we call them 'pitched battles'. At Austerlitz the only thing close to grandtactical maneuvering would be the commitment of forces to attack and the commitment of reserves. The only strategic movement is Friant's division arriving on the field. At Eylau it is the arrival of Davout, L'Estocq and Ney each in turn are the only strategic movements. The only grand tactical movements were commitment of reserves and again attacks.

I'm not a fan of table edge to table edge games. I'm with you there, but I've talked with people who say that Borodino needs to be like 35' long so that the French can try Davout's proposed flank movement if they want. I find that view overly simplistic. If you feel that way, play out the 1812 campaign, not a specific battle. On September 7, 1812, the troops were where they were. I don't know what Kutuzov would have done had Davout made his flank march, but I know the wargamers on the other side of the table are fools if they don't just respond with, "Well, if you're letting them relocate an entire 100,000 man corps, then that takes time and we'd get to adjust, so we abandon our position rather than be outflanked."

My point is that the table can only be so big and it really isn't limited by the reach of our arms or the size of a room or even the ground scale. The table is limited by the practical scope of the historical battle we are choosing to re-fight.

The notion of written orders is that something requires the player to stick to a preconceived plan rather than continually adjusting agilely to every eventuality as your battalions pivot on a dime to take advantage of a new battlefield opportunity. Essentially written orders are commonly used to fight radio control in eras before the radio. I'm not saying written orders are good or the way to do it but I believe that if we are going to simulate high level command then we need to restrict the level of exactness players can exhort over every action of each unit.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Hello Bandit!

"While I agree that written orders don't make sense, I think this is a bad argument. We use die rolls combined with mathematical formulas to represent musket fire. Using a written order to represent a verbal order is a way closer abstraction than what we commonly use for other aspects."

This is only part of my argument against written orders. I agree it's not a bad abstraction, but why use an abstraction when you can just use historical verbal commands?

"Likely neither do the people who use written orders in all their games. People choose what works for their group, therefore none of us continue to do something that we feel is broken and we can all make this same statement replacing "written orders… with verbal" for whatever it is we each use."

Well I think that's apparent. I'm not saying it does not work. It's not historical, it's subjective, there is generally controversy, it must be tracked, some players ignore it, they take time to compose, who are the order police, what are the penalties?

"Tabletop wargames mostly grandtactical and/or tactical. Therefore the amount of strategic maneuver is highly limited. I suppose this is why we call them 'pitched battles'. At Austerlitz the only thing close to grandtactical maneuvering would be the commitment of forces to attack and the commitment of reserves. The only strategic movement is Friant's division arriving on the field. At Eylau it is the arrival of Davout, L'Estocq and Ney each in turn are the only strategic movements. The only grand tactical movements were commitment of reserves and again attacks."

Exactly and when you step back and think about it most of these are obvious and or commitments made prior to the game starting. So why have a complex written order system?

"I'm not a fan of table edge to table edge games. I'm with you there, but I've talked with people who say that Borodino needs to be like 35' long so that the French can try Davout's proposed flank movement if they want. I find that view overly simplistic. If you feel that way, play out the 1812 campaign, not a specific battle. On September 7, 1812, the troops were where they were. I don't know what Kutuzov would have done had Davout made his flank march, but I know the wargamers on the other side of the table are fools if they don't just respond with, "Well, if you're letting them relocate an entire 100,000 man corps, then that takes time and we'd get to adjust, so we abandon our position rather than be outflanked."

Well we fought Borodino three times last year on a ping pong table with 6mm figures. One of the variants was Davouts outflanking movement. It didn't work for a few reasons, but we did it all without any written orders.

"The notion of written orders is that something requires the player to stick to a preconceived plan rather than continually adjusting agilely to every eventuality as your battalions pivot on a dime to take advantage of a new battlefield opportunity."

This is exactly where the myth of written orders lays. We dumped written orders probably 15 years ago, if not longer. We have never had an issue with plans or agility. Most games are preset as per my mega game example. You have very little wiggle room. The odd force might be able to make some type of flanking move or reserves held until that certain moment, but that's about it. The balance of most games is to simply deal with the enemy to your front. Timing and execution are bigger problems for a battle plan then written orders. Historically these were generally verbal orders, so why pervert them?

"Essentially written orders are commonly used to fight radio control in eras before the radio. I'm not saying written orders are good or the way to do it but I believe that if we are going to simulate high level command then we need to restrict the level of exactness players can exhort over every action of each unit."

That's what I'm saying in part. Players perceive that written orders give them control. It does to some extent, but unless that filters down to the individual units as you say, it does not. Oddly enough you also often get the reverse. Some low level commanders did react to situations that were outside of their superiors orders. Some games with written orders don't allow this, thus removing historical actions from the game. Of course if you can disobey written orders, what is the point? Where is the control?

Best regards,

Glenn

Glenn wrote:

This is only part of my argument against written orders. I agree it's not a bad abstraction, but why use an abstraction when you can just use historical verbal commands?

Hi Glenn:
While this makes perfect sense, it is only viable with multiple players on a side. If there are only two or three, then how does that work?

We have never had an issue with plans or agility. Most games are preset as per my mega game example. You have very little wiggle room. The odd force might be able to make some type of flanking move or reserves held until that certain moment, but that's about it. The balance of most games is to simply deal with the enemy to your front. Timing and execution are bigger problems for a battle plan then written orders. Historically these were generally verbal orders, so why pervert them?

I am not sure that written orders 'pervert' anything, only make the game more complex or simply more involved in writing.

You seem to be saying with the whole 'deal with the enemy to your front' argument concerning table top play that since two lines of figures on a table facing each other is the norm, which you don't agree with as a necessity, let alone historical, is the reason there is no need for written orders, or even verbal ones for that matter. While the basic pre-determined plan would be followed, there would be times during the battle where orders would have to be given on a grand tactical level, like committing reserves or changing objectives. [Both of which aren't possible with most tabletop wargame deployments.]

Players perceive that written orders give them control. It does to some extent, but unless that filters down to the individual units as you say, it does not.

Come again? Of course, players perceive it that way. That's the method games with written orders provide 'control' and command direction. And why wouldn't it 'filter down to the individual units?

Oddly enough you also often get the reverse. Some low level commanders did react to situations that were outside of their superiors orders. Some games with written orders don't allow this, thus removing historical actions from the game. Of course if you can disobey written orders, what is the point? Where is the control?

Of course, those are game restriction, usually for game simplicity. As for "if you can disobey written orders, what is the point? Where is the control?" Good question. One that was asked by Napoleonic commanders all the time. Wellington sure asked often enough. For example, at one battle [Talevara, IIRC], Wellington ordered the commander of the household cavalry to advance. The commander refused, saying that Wellington couldn't dismiss him or place another in command because only the King could do that…and rode away.

I have seen players do just that, regardless of the rules: Disobey their orders, often by ignoring the spirit of the orders and adherring to the letter…as interpreted by them. How different is that from actual battles?

Obviously, there needs to be 'controls' over such things for a game, but such things should be simple and as close to the real thing as possible.

Bandit wrote: "The notion of written orders is that something requires the player to stick to a preconceived plan rather than continually adjusting agilely to every eventuality as your battalions pivot on a dime to take advantage of a new battlefield opportunity."

This is exactly where the myth of written orders lays.

Why is it a "myth"? If replicating the command system and orders, isn't curtailing "continually adjusting agilely to every eventuality as your battalions pivot on a dime to take advantage of a new battlefield opportunity" something to shoot for in a set of rules? How is it a 'myth' to use written orders in attempting to achieve this? If you are saying that written orders don't do this, then it is simply that you don't think they achieve what they are meant to, while others do. Is that what you are saying?

What is missing, I think, is a real appreciation for the limits placed on divisional commanders and especially brigade and battalion commanders regarding what they could and couldn't do in a battle… The very real SOPs and conventions laid down in all Napoleonic armies. The same is less true of Corps commanders, but there still existed things they simply couldn't do at all.

Much of the problems you list would be resolved to a large extent, from having to write or give lots of orders to players disobeying them, with the very things the Napoleonic armies did to 'resolve' them--with common expectations and limitations--i.e. rules.

Best, Bill

Gentlemen, is it not apparent that, if you have an understanding of how real battlefied communications worked in this era, that written orders are certainly necessary, after recieving comunications in the evening, to issue dispatches in the morning?

You do seem to have a handle on this Bill.

I should know better than trying to join any TMP thread once it goes past 100 posts but I'll continue to work my way through.

In the meantime:

Marc the plastics fan

The WW2 example you gave was very specific. It followed directly on from WW1 when (as in WW2) the British army went from a small professional force to a whopping great army almost over night.

In order to accommodate the fact that there were then huge numbers of inexperienced Officers at all levels of command the 'powers that be' invented a process that could be followed by all the peace time managers and school teachers etc rushed into the structure.

This resulted in the join the dots, railway timetable, first do A then B style you refer to.

OK, think I have caught up with things now. Interesting thread.

One thing I would like to add which I think has been touched on but I'd like to highlight is size of game being represented.

As pointed out "written orders" to a great extent exist only to control player actions. Real World detailed written orders being largely at Army and Corps level prior to a battle commencing.

I'm fine with this if players want to do it that way but would see it more appropriate if applied in this 'battle' context where the game is several Corps or a whole Army v Army activity.

Not just because of historical alignment but as restraint on the movement of tens of thousands of men from one pre ordered activity to another.

Personally I have given up on such mega games long ago, the most troops appearing on my Horse and Musket table being representative of a Corps per side.

As such the need for and historic likelihood of, written orders is pretty low and likely to be only one level down – Corps to Division.

This is tightens still further when playing General de Brigade, or Regimental Fire and Fury, where we tend to designate objectives for the single Division present and its Brigades and a specific Brigade front to occupy and then rely 100% on Couriers and a dice role for the message getting through and any delay the General may have in carrying them out.

We use Regulation and 'Preservation of the Force' to control the actions of Brigade commanders in their movement and response options and to govern how they react to enemy activity.

For what its worth, we as a group have played several sets of H&M rules that involved CPs in various incarnations and have discarded all of them. Never finding the little explanation as to there existence that was given particularity convincing, nor that great in game play.

The lack of conviction arising from them being used to cover too many factors and the whole idea of storing up time or decision power too artificial. To be honest, an 'Initiative Roll' might be more brutal but it gets the job done.

I should add that we 'dialogue' our games extensively.

So in terms of the use of Couriers, General Smith's Brigade may be getting shot to bits. His Player might then state that he is sending a Courier to the Divisional Commander to inform him of this. The Courier then takes the table movement to get there.

On arrival, the Player as Divisional CO might then state he is sending word to General Brown to rotate Smith with his fresh Brigade.

The Courier then goes to Brown and Smith in turn.

When Smith retires, the opposing player, if his orders were to take Smiths position, must then advance his Brigade if the command figure cannot see Brown's force. Or may chose to if it can be seen and risk facing fresh troops.

Hello Bill!

Obviously you would not follow written orders. You can't even follow protocol. I list a posting to you and you don't reply. I list another to Bandit and you reply!

"While this makes perfect sense, it is only viable with multiple players on a side. If there are only two or three, then how does that work?"

Sorry don't see the problem, works the same for us no matter how many players there are.

"I am not sure that written orders 'pervert' anything, only make the game more complex or simply more involved in writing."

You used the word more twice.

"You seem to be saying with the whole 'deal with the enemy to your front' argument concerning table top play that since two lines of figures on a table facing each other is the norm, which you don't agree with as a necessity, let alone historical, is the reason there is no need for written orders, or even verbal ones for that matter. While the basic pre-determined plan would be followed, there would be times during the battle where orders would have to be given on a grand tactical level, like committing reserves or changing objectives. [Both of which aren't possible with most tabletop wargame deployments.]"

Yes, but why do they have to be written?

"Players perceive that written orders give them control. It does to some extent, but unless that filters down to the individual units as you say, it does not.

Come again? Of course, players perceive it that way. That's the method games with written orders provide 'control' and command direction. And why wouldn't it 'filter down to the individual units?"

I think you missed my phrase "to some extent". Depending on the wording of the written order it may or may not filter down to the individual units. I've seen written orders that could not even be read.

"Of course, those are game restriction, usually for game simplicity."

Written orders don't simplify anything.

"As for "if you can disobey written orders, what is the point? Where is the control?" Good question. One that was asked by Napoleonic commanders all the time. Wellington sure asked often enough. For example, at one battle [Talevara, IIRC], Wellington ordered the commander of the household cavalry to advance. The commander refused, saying that Wellington couldn't dismiss him or place another in command because only the King could do that…and rode away.

I have seen players do just that, regardless of the rules: Disobey their orders, often by ignoring the spirit of the orders and adherring to the letter…as interpreted by them. How different is that from actual battles?"

I think your making my point here. Players don't follow orders regardless of the rules. The argument for written orders is "control". So if your not getting control out of written orders, why use them? Is your historical example above possible or impossible when using written orders?

"Obviously, there needs to be 'controls' over such things for a game, but such things should be simple and as close to the real thing as possible."

Again written orders are not simple, verbal is closer to the real thing then written. So why use written if your trying to be closer to the real thing?

Bandit wrote: "The notion of written orders is that something requires the player to stick to a preconceived plan rather than continually adjusting agilely to every eventuality as your battalions pivot on a dime to take advantage of a new battlefield opportunity."

This is exactly where the myth of written orders lays.

Why is it a "myth"? If replicating the command system and orders, isn't curtailing "continually adjusting agilely to every eventuality as your battalions pivot on a dime to take advantage of a new battlefield opportunity" something to shoot for in a set of rules? How is it a 'myth' to use written orders in attempting to achieve this? If you are saying that written orders don't do this, then it is simply that you don't think they achieve what they are meant to, while others do. Is that what you are saying?

Exactly, your previous comments above pretty much sum it up.

Best regards,

Glenn

Obviously you would not follow written orders. You can't even follow protocol. I list a posting to you and you don't reply. I list another to Bandit and you reply!

Hi Glenn:
Just trying to be efficient, two birds and all that, and your reply to Bandit came first… Protocol? I don't need no sinkin' protocol.

Sorry don't see the problem, works the same for us no matter how many players there are.

Well, first of all, if there are just two players issuing verbal orders to their respective commands, who are you giving the verbal orders to? This sounds more like a dialogue between opponents than issuing orders, or are you giving away your plans first thing by telling the other side?

Yes, but why do they have to be written?

They don't have to be. What "orders" have to do is determine the actions of army units, holding them to a predetermined course until further orders.** And no, written orders don't simplify anything, but they do provide for the dynamic described above.

I think you missed my phrase "to some extent". Depending on the wording of the written order it may or may not filter down to the individual units. I've seen written orders that could not even be read.

Yes, certainly the wording [or clarity] of the order would have an impact on how the order was followed, or 'filtered down'. Realistically, that would be true of any order past or present. The question would be whether written ordes mimic that in a viable way.

The argument for written orders is "control". So if your not getting control out of written orders, why use them? Is your historical example above possible or impossible when using written orders?

Well, I have never heard 'control' being the rationale for written orders, particularly over some other game mechanism. The argument I have heard is the one given above.** They don't provide any more or less 'control' than verbal orders, chits, Tempo points or any other method representing communication. My historical example is possible with any game mechanic for transmitting orders including written orders, depending on the rules, of course.

Again written orders are not simple, verbal is closer to the real thing then written. So why use written if your trying to be closer to the real thing?

I've agreed with you on this before. I think written orders for the pre-game 'battle plan' serves better than verbal orders because they can be as detailed as the real thing and they often were written out. Players can reference them during play, where they can't verbal orders. During the battle, verbal orders are fine IF there are more than one player to a side. If there aren't, who exactly are you giving orders to?

Depending on the rule mechanics, written order can and do limit "continually adjusting agilely to every eventuality as your battalions pivot on a dime to take advantage of a new battlefield opportunity."

Now, I can understand that you see written rules as complicated and unnecessary, but I don't think they fail so badly as to justify their benefits being regulated to a 'myth'. While written orders are certainly time consuming and awkward in play, any 'control' or opportunities for misunderstandings still can be found in equal measure with verbal orders. Certainly simplicity and 'it's more like it was really done' are benefits of verbal orders, but they offer as many pitfalls and 'control misfires' as written orders.

Personally, I think that orders at all levels can be portrayed in a game successfully without a reliance on written orders…or verbal orders for that matter. It all depends on what you want to portray of the entire communication system, what particular challenges you want the players to face.

Best Regards,

Bill

Written orders seem to play a very large role in Longstreet's memoirs.

This is only part of my argument against written orders. I agree it's not a bad abstraction, but why use an abstraction when you can just use historical verbal commands?

Historical verbal commands can't be directly replicated. There was lag time and the command was typically conveyed by a 3rd-party. We cannot easily replicate this within a wargame. It can be done, the model is not complicated, but no one will play it. The obvious solution is a double-blind scenario with several rooms. Players sit in various rooms grouped by geographic location and can change rooms when they change geographic locations. Players update their own maps. Messengers carry status updates each direct going through an intermediary, a host or umpire who updates the actual map or table or whatever and the game progresses.

Anyways, my point is that in a miniatures game where we all sit around the table, verbal commands can't be represented directly because there was an imprecision in the historical transmission of orders which doesn't occur at the wargaming table. Therefore you saying, "just use verbal orders they are historical," is no more true than those you are arguing against using written orders and claiming those are historical.

Exactly and when you step back and think about it most of these are obvious and or commitments made prior to the game starting. So why have a complex written order system?

Because players have more power than historical generals. Players can be precise and exact in their placement and movement of units, players can react each turn based on seeing the entire battlefield and do so without any lag.

Well we fought Borodino three times last year on a ping pong table with 6mm figures. One of the variants was Davouts outflanking movement. It didn't work for a few reasons, but we did it all without any written orders.

I know this will sound flippant but my immediate through is, "Yeah… so… relevancy is?" You could play Borodino with dice or cards or written orders or hand signal. The fact that a battle was played using a given mechanic is not in itself indicative of the mechanic being either good or historical. As Chris Rock once said, "You can drive your car with your feet too, doesn't make it a good ______ idea."

This is exactly where the myth of written orders lays. We dumped written orders probably 15 years ago, if not longer. We have never had an issue with plans or agility. Most games are preset as per my mega game example. You have very little wiggle room. The odd force might be able to make some type of flanking move or reserves held until that certain moment, but that's about it. The balance of most games is to simply deal with the enemy to your front. Timing and execution are bigger problems for a battle plan then written orders. Historically these were generally verbal orders, so why pervert them?

The argument you make here is that players can't abuse the drastic amount of control they have in comparison to historical commanders in your example games because there is no opportunity to do so. I am skeptical of this but even if I accept it, that doesn't fix the problem, it just means that within the confines of those circumstances that meet your example it isn't an issue. What if I were to put on a game that didn't meet your sample criteria, the problem we are discussing still exists there. Also, within the bounds of your example, nothing stops players from exhorting overly precise tactical control over their units and subunits. Perhaps in your experience there is no negative impact, fine, but that doesn't mean that an ahistorical representation is occurring and as that is my concern, your example doesn't resolve it.

That's what I'm saying in part. Players perceive that written orders give them control. It does to some extent, but unless that filters down to the individual units as you say, it does not. Oddly enough you also often get the reverse. Some low level commanders did react to situations that were outside of their superiors orders. Some games with written orders don't allow this, thus removing historical actions from the game. Of course if you can disobey written orders, what is the point? Where is the control?

No. Players know that written orders *restrict their control* not provide additional control.

Some low level commanders did react to situations that were outside of their superiors orders.

Yes, two different people, while in a wargame the decisions are made by the same people. This is like the game of telephone, playing the game of telephone doesn't increase clarity of message, it reduces it, that is the point. Written orders don't make it easier to control your troops, they make it harder.

I am not a fan of written orders but I do believe that figures should be harder to control on the tabletop.

How is it a 'myth' to use written orders in attempting to achieve this? If you are saying that written orders don't do this, then it is simply that you don't think they achieve what they are meant to, while others do. Is that what you are saying?

YES. I think written orders are meant to curtail control and I think they fail to do so to the extent it is intended. I also think the extent to which they do accomplish it is not historically accurate. I am a fan of what they seek to accomplish, not what they do accomplish.

Cheers,

The Bandit

YES. I think written orders are meant to curtail control and I think they fail to do so to the extent it is intended. I also think the extent to which they do accomplish it is not historically accurate. I am a fan of what they seek to accomplish, not what they do accomplish.

Well, while Bandit might not like this, I do agree with him, but include being a fan of what is sought if the resulting mechanics are successful. Regardless of the kind of wargame mechanic, the only two questions about them are:

1. Do they succeed in emulating, mimicking, representing, simulating, recreating, modeling, portraying etc. etc the military history and combat they were designed to?

2. Do they add to the enjoyment of the game? [And there are many, many ways in which they could, from simplicity to an engaging game challenge.]

So, the first question about written orders is what they are meant to recreate in the dynamics of command? I think there is some divergent ideas here, which is Okay as long as they are clearly identified as being different goals.

The second question is, "Do they work?"

The third questions is, "If they do work, are they fun to play?"

And the questions have to be asked and answered in that order if the idea is to model military combat from some era.

Best Regards, Bill

Hello Bill!

"This sounds more like a dialogue"

Yes, it would be.

"Well, I have never heard 'control' being the rationale for written orders"

Odd, that's the main reason anyone has ever told me before why they use them. It was certainly the main reason why I used them.

"My historical example is possible with any game mechanic for transmitting orders including written orders, depending on the rules, of course."

Depending on the rules is a big one. My experience with written rules is even if it is allowed there is big debate brewing either during or after the game.

"Personally, I think that orders at all levels can be portrayed in a game successfully without a reliance on written orders…or verbal orders for that matter. It all depends on what you want to portray of the entire communication system, what particular challenges you want the players to face."

I agree 100% and that's exactly where we are with our games today.

Best regards,

Glenn

"Well, I have never heard 'control' being the rationale for written orders"

Odd, that's the main reason anyone has ever told me before why they use them. It was certainly the main reason why I used them.

Hmmm. Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here. Orders are certainly a method for directing units [e.g. controlling them]…perhaps the primary method of control in the military. However, I have never heard a designer or player stating that they use written orders to gain some quality of 'control' compared to some other method, or that the specific benefit of written orders over other methods is 'control.'

"Personally, I think that orders at all levels can be portrayed in a game successfully without a reliance on written orders…or verbal orders for that matter. It all depends on what you want to portray of the entire communication system, what particular challenges you want the players to face."

I agree 100% and that's exactly where we are with our games today.

So, the first question is not what mechanic is being used, but rather what historical/military dynamics do we want to recreate? Then we can talk about which mechanics best can provide that.

Best Regards,

Bill

Orders are certainly a method for directing units [e.g. controlling them]…perhaps the primary method of control in the military

Whether admitted to, or not, by their creators they are also the primary method of control in wargames rules.

Mostly in terms of controlling players by trying to ensure that newbies and those in denial of real world possibility, have some similar notion as how troops were used in battle to that which took place.

Sadly the disclaimer as to 'your mileage may vary' is often absent.

Hello Bandit!

"Historical verbal commands can't be directly replicated."

Neither can written ones.

"Anyways, my point is that in a miniatures game where we all sit around the table, verbal commands can't be represented directly because there was an imprecision in the historical transmission of orders which doesn't occur at the wargaming table. Therefore you saying, "just use verbal orders they are historical," is no more true than those you are arguing against using written orders and claiming those are historical."

I agree, except verbal is an easier tool.

"Exactly and when you step back and think about it most of these are obvious and or commitments made prior to the game starting. So why have a complex written order system?

Because players have more power than historical generals. Players can be precise and exact in their placement and movement of units, players can react each turn based on seeing the entire battlefield and do so without any lag."

You can use lag time with verbal orders if you want.

"Well we fought Borodino three times last year on a ping pong table with 6mm figures. One of the variants was Davouts outflanking movement. It didn't work for a few reasons, but we did it all without any written orders.

I know this will sound flippant but my immediate through is, "Yeah… so… relevancy is?" You could play Borodino with dice or cards or written orders or hand signal. The fact that a battle was played using a given mechanic is not in itself indicative of the mechanic being either good or historical. As Chris Rock once said, "You can drive your car with your feet too, doesn't make it a good ______ idea."

That was in response to your Borodino statement.

"That's what I'm saying in part. Players perceive that written orders give them control. It does to some extent, but unless that filters down to the individual units as you say, it does not. Oddly enough you also often get the reverse. Some low level commanders did react to situations that were outside of their superiors orders. Some games with written orders don't allow this, thus removing historical actions from the game. Of course if you can disobey written orders, what is the point? Where is the control?

No. Players know that written orders *restrict their control* not provide additional control."

That depends on what level of command your talking about.

"Some low level commanders did react to situations that were outside of their superiors orders.

Yes, two different people, while in a wargame the decisions are made by the same people."

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Even if it's the same person, it's a clear attempt to act outside of the written orders.

"Written orders don't make it easier to control your troops, they make it harder."

Yes, I think that's one of my points.

"I am not a fan of written orders but I do believe that figures should be harder to control on the tabletop."

I'm not a fan either and I have no problem controlling figures without them.

"I am a fan of what they seek to accomplish, not what they do accomplish."

Sorry Bandit, but this just sounds odd. If their not doing it why would you be a fan?

Best regards,

Glenn

Bandit: "Historical verbal commands can't be directly replicated."

Glenn Pearce: Neither can written ones.

Wow, welcome to a circular conversation.

Glenn Pearce: I agree it's [written orders] not a bad abstraction, but why use an abstraction when you can just use historical verbal commands?

Bandit: Historical verbal commands can't be directly replicated.

Glenn Pearce: Neither can written ones.

And there is the loop. Excellent, so you said to use verbal because written was an abstraction. I pointed out how verbal was also inaccurate. You pointed out that written was inaccurate… which was where we started.

Glenn Pearce: I agree, except verbal is an easier tool.

Is "easier" the only criteria you're interested in? If so, then we disagree at a base level. If not, then let's move onto the other criteria.

Bandit: No. Players know that written orders *restrict their control* not provide additional control.

Glenn Pearce: That depends on what level of command your talking about.

No, it doesn't. Allow me to illustrate:

You write an order that reads, "Attack northeast along the road to the village." While operating under that order your flexibility is restricted, you can't randomly turn west and attack in that direction because your orders restrict you to attacking in a northeastern direction.

I can't see how being restricted to moving in a pre-defined direction provides *more* control to the player than playing without the restriction of the written order.

Bandit: "Written orders don't make it easier to control your troops, they make it harder."

Glenn Pearce: Yes, I think that's one of my points.

But you keep making statements contrary to this. Like:

Glenn Pearce: I'm not a fan either and I have no problem controlling figures without them.

Of course you have less trouble controlling figures without restrictions than you would with restrictions.

Bandit: "I am a fan of what they seek to accomplish, not what they do accomplish."

Glenn Pearce: Sorry Bandit, but this just sounds odd. If their not doing it why would you be a fan?

I've said multiple times that I am not a fan of written orders because they fail at their goal but as I say here, I am a fan of their goal. That seems pretty straight forward.

I'm also a fan of what what the state DOT tries to accomplish, i.e. maintaining ample and functional roads, but I believe the execution levels a lot to be desired, so am I a fan of the state DOT? Eh, I don't hate them but I am critical of them. Do I dislike their goal? No, I want good roads just as they do.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Hello Bandit!

"And there is the loop. Excellent, so you said to use verbal because written was an abstraction. I pointed out how verbal was also inaccurate. You pointed out that written was inaccurate… which was where we started."

For me abstraction and replication are two different words with two different meanings.

"Is "easier" the only criteria you're interested in?"

It's only one word but it's huge in complications and time. You can add in, more common, simpler, less complicated, fewer debates, etc.

"You write an order that reads, "Attack northeast along the road to the village." While operating under that order your flexibility is restricted, you can't randomly turn west and attack in that direction because your orders restrict you to attacking in a northeastern direction.

I can't see how being restricted to moving in a pre-defined direction provides *more* control to the player than playing without the restriction of the written order."

First of all I'm not going to write my own order. The person that writes the orders has the control, not the person that receives it.

"Of course you have less trouble controlling figures without restrictions than you would with restrictions."

That was my point.

"I've said multiple times that I am not a fan of written orders because they fail at their goal"

Then we agree!

Best regards,

Glenn

Glenn Pearce: For me abstraction and replication are two different words with two different meanings.

Sure, but since abstraction precludes accurate replication directly…

Bandit: "Is "easier" the only criteria you're interested in?"

Glenn Pearce: It's only one word but it's huge in complications and time. You can add in, more common, simpler, less complicated, fewer debates, etc.

So in short: yes. Well, then we'd best part ways on this specific area since we're going to disagree completely. I don't dislike easy, or the other similar terms you rattled off, but easier = less accurate. Therefore I look to balance the two. Since your primary criteria is easy that precludes accurate which precludes balance. Not that your games aren't enjoyable, I believe your word that they are but they aren't what I'm looking for.

Bandit: "Of course you have less trouble controlling figures without restrictions than you would with restrictions."

Glenn Pearce: That was my point.

This is another instance of you saying things that contradict other statements you've made.

Bandit: "I've said multiple times that I am not a fan of written orders because they fail at their goal"

Glenn Pearce: Then we agree!

On this specific point I think we actually did a couple pages back but considering the contradictions I'm really not certain. It is possible you're consistent in your thinking but not in your expression and that is what's caused the continued debate or maybe I just can't follow you, but regardless there it is.

Glenn Pearce: First of all I'm not going to write my own order. The person that writes the orders has the control, not the person that receives it.

This part makes sense to me and is something you had not previously stated, or I missed it. However, it is not innate in a game. In fact, its opposite is innate. Whoever plays the roll of C-in-C or Army Commander, etc… will issue orders to say you and me. However, that C-in-C now won't have anything to do for a good long time while we're following those orders. How do they pass the time? In most games I have witnessed to keep the C-in-C from becoming completely bored, they are also given some troops to control so they can pass the time between when they need to do things as the C-in-C. As McLaddie has pointed out in every thread I've read that he's participated in, Nappy liked to kick a drum around for hours because the middle of a battle was boring for him. While Nappy was compelled to be there, the average wargamer isn't so we give him some troops. Now here is the rub – you are complying with orders written by someone else, I am complying with orders written by someone else, but the C-in-C is complying with ordered issued by him to him.

This causes a couple of problems and is typically not easily avoided in games that use either written or verbal orders or order tokens, markers, etc. The benefit of a written order or token, card, whatever over a verbal order is that 1) the verbal order does not persist as a record and the others do, thus players can keep the honest people honest, 2) players can reference their orders later rather than asking for a reminder.

#2 Is important because people don't repeat things the same time and time again accurately, intent changes and intent changes the wording which changes the meaning. This is not conscious in many cases but it occurs all the same and having a persistent system of record helps it.

On top of this there is more. If you are executing someone else's orders awesome. That solved one level. However, you're moving units around the tabletop and can execute that with exactness of your will. But in history that wasn't the case, historical commanders down to the battalion level were depending on others for execution. Therefore in your example, a corps commander sends you an order, you move your division. Awesome, but historically, a corps commander sends you an order and then you send someone else one who sends someone else one who sends someone else one who moves a portion of the division hopefully in coordination with others doing the same thing. Thus, you still have drastically more control over execution than did Davout or Friant.

I spoke about this in an earlier post and won't belabor my previous points here by repeating them in detail but in short, we need mechanics to prevent the exactness of execution if our goal is to present players with similar struggles as their historical counterparts.

To express my opinion of order types more verbosely:

Written orders fail to achieve their goal, therefore I find fault with them.

Verbal orders fail to achieve their goal and lend themselves to abuse, therefore I find fault with them.

Both are playable mechanics so while true, the response of, "They work for my group and my games are good," is both true and irrelevant.

The inevitable question in response to my opinion just expressed is, "So what do you propose?" Fact is, I'm not entirely sure yet. I mentioned I am working on a rules set the last couple years and have been experimenting and refining command & control systems for it. I started with written orders and moved to order cards, I started with command points and have moved to influence rolls to influence an urgency or delay in the order's execution.

To prevent exactness of execution, the timing of execution of orders is somewhat random and can be influenced but not controlled implicitly except with great trade-off. Also exactness of movement is prevented by requiring players to move units at their full rate as well as forcing them to stop at status transitions, for instance when transitioning from engagement to combat distance of the enemy.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Hello Bandit!

"Sure, but since abstraction precludes accurate replication directly…"

Your perception, not mine.

"but easier = less accurate"

To a very limited extent, perhaps. If I use a shovel to shovel vs a spoon. The term "less accurate" does not spring to mind, the word better seems to be more appropriate.

"Not that your games aren't enjoyable, I believe your word that they are but they aren't what I'm looking for."

That's okay.

"This is another instance of you saying things that contradict other statements you've made."

Sorry, but as I've tried to explain different words and or different phrases produce different answers. I've not seen one contradiction.

"or maybe I just can't follow you, but regardless there it is."

It appears so.

"Now here is the rub – you are complying with orders written by someone else, I am complying with orders written by someone else, but the C-in-C is complying with ordered issued by him to him."

We rarely play this way. Our games generally find being a c&c is full time. If not he obtains a strait forward command with no real options. Most times if he actually assumes a lower command as well it's under another commander.

"thus players can keep the honest people honest"

Our players are honest, there is no need to keep them so.

"players can reference their orders later rather than asking for a reminder"

Never had this problem either.

"Is important because people don't repeat things the same time and time again accurately, intent changes and intent changes the wording which changes the meaning. This is not conscious in many cases but it occurs all the same and having a persistent system of record helps it."

Another none problem with us.

"On top of this there is more. If you are executing someone else's orders awesome. That solved one level. However, you're moving units around the tabletop and can execute that with exactness of your will. But in history that wasn't the case, historical commanders down to the battalion level were depending on others for execution. Therefore in your example, a corps commander sends you an order, you move your division. Awesome, but historically, a corps commander sends you an order and then you send someone else one who sends someone else one who sends someone else one who moves a portion of the division hopefully in coordination with others doing the same thing. Thus, you still have drastically more control over execution than did Davout or Friant."

I don't think I had that example, but I think this happens in all wargames.

"Both are playable mechanics so while true, the response of, "They work for my group and my games are good," is both true and irrelevant."

For you okay, but not for me and my group.

"The inevitable question in response to my opinion just expressed is, "So what do you propose?" Fact is, I'm not entirely sure yet. I mentioned I am working on a rules set the last couple years and have been experimenting and refining command & control systems for it. I started with written orders and moved to order cards, I started with command points and have moved to influence rolls to influence an urgency or delay in the order's execution.

To prevent exactness of execution, the timing of execution of orders is somewhat random and can be influenced but not controlled implicitly except with great trade-off. Also exactness of movement is prevented by requiring players to move units at their full rate as well as forcing them to stop at status transitions, for instance when transitioning from engagement to combat distance of the enemy."

Good luck with your rules, rest assured, I'll never want a copy.

Best regards,

Glenn

Bandit: "Sure, but since abstraction precludes accurate replication directly…"

Glenn Pearce: Your perception, not mine.

That isn't a statement of perception, it is a logical conclusion. Claiming you deny it does not refute it.

Glenn Pearce: To a very limited extent, perhaps. If I use a shovel to shovel vs a spoon. The term "less accurate" does not spring to mind, the word better seems to be more appropriate.

You conclusion is not what the words mean. A shovel is certainly less accurate than a spoon, more efficient, but less accurate. That is an innate conflict in most issues of both scope and scale.

Your countless references to your group are likely accurate but their relevance is nothing similar to the number of times you cite it. You seem to deny concerns that occur in other peoples' games with the continual refrain of, "not in my group." That is lovely for you but this conversation is about everyone else. Sharing what works for you is great, denying the concerns of others is useless.

Glenn Pearce: Odd, that's the main reason [control] anyone has ever told me before why they use them [written orders]. It [control] was certainly the main reason why I used them [written orders].

Bandit: "Written orders don't make it easier to control your troops, they make it harder."

Glenn Pearce: Yes, I think that's one of my points.

Sample contradiction listed above. Somehow written orders provide control yet make it harder to exercise control. Your words and your agreement with my statements. As I said in my last post, perhaps what you intend to say is clear but what you do say is not.

Good luck with your rules, rest assured, I'll never want a copy.

I take it you're offended. Otherwise I don't know why you'd say something like this as it is an unnecessary statement within the bounds of the thread. My intent was not to offend you but to press you to explain contradictions and provide deeper insight than, "It works for my group," as that is wonderful but doesn't help others, this being a public community forum its chief purpose is that of the broader audience. I cite my rules only to illustrate how the concepts I am trying have changed and sometimes evolved based on struggling with the issues presented in this thread. Funny thing is, should I ever complete my project and publish my rules, you'd likely never know to avoid them.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Hello Bandit!

"it is a logical conclusion"

Not for me.

"more efficient"

That's my point.

"denying the concerns of others is useless"

I'm hardly denying the concerns of others. I'm listening to you intently. I've just never experienced those concerns.

"Glenn Pearce: Odd, that's the main reason [control] anyone has ever told me before why they use them [written orders]. It [control] was certainly the main reason why I used them [written orders].

Bandit: "Written orders don't make it easier to control your troops, they make it harder."

Glenn Pearce: Yes, I think that's one of my points.

Sample contradiction listed above."

This is not even close to a contradiction. You have taken things completely out of context and have somehow twisted them together. My first quote was why most people I know and myself sought out the use of written orders. My second quote agreed with you "they make it harder". This has been one of my points all along. Remember I suggest verbal over written because they are "easier". So obviously written must be harder. These are two completely different subjects.

"perhaps what you intend to say is clear but what you do say is not"

That's clearly the case for you, as I also said in my last post.

"I take it you're offended"

Certainly not, if I was I would have said so.

"Otherwise I don't know why you'd say something like this"

Clearly your not understanding what I'm saying, so trying to get clarification on rules from you would probably be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

"I cite my rules"

Once you cross that line they become part of the subject.

"Funny thing is, should I ever complete my project and publish my rules, you'd likely never know to avoid them."

Maybe not, that's why I want to try and better my position.

Best regards,

Glenn

Glenn,

After reading your last post I am left saying, "Huh?"

At this point we're talking in a circle, akin to arguing the difference between an object being red and an object only reflecting the portion of light waves that appears red, as though there is a difference.

Cheers,

The Bandit