"What can a Commander-in-Chief do?" Topic
14 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Game Design Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Profile ArticleMeet the winner of our recent contest.
Current Poll
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
MajorB | 23 Nov 2013 9:55 a.m. PST |
Many games seem to treat the CinC figure as "just another general". He can do exerything every other general can do and in addition can "steal" a unit from a subordinate and take over it's control. I'm not sure if this is realistic? Any comments? So what would you allow a Cin C figure to actually do? |
Martin Rapier | 23 Nov 2013 10:37 a.m. PST |
Period? Game level? This sounds vaguely Napoleonic, so it partly depends on commander style. The differentiation in Horse, Foot & Guns seems sensible, 'Army HQ' (somewhat static, but able to boost the command ability of subordinate units rather like the Corscian Ogre) or 'Command Post' (tearing around the battlefield influencing things locally, rather like Old Nosey). In both cases, being a 'brilliant general' helps a lot, whereas Kutozov as an 'inert' Army HQ basically gets to nap in his deckchair. The best thing for a modern CinC to do is the leadership & vision stuff combining stints at HQ with motivational and information gathering visits to the front. Or he could do a Hitler and sit in his bunker making ranting speeches to be parodied on uTube and personally directing a single 'battalion' of Jagdtigers against the Remagen bridge whilst demanding to know the whereabouts of Fegelein. |
MajorB | 23 Nov 2013 10:41 a.m. PST |
Period? Game level? I was thinking generally horse and musket, but interested in views on other periods too. Level would be such that you actually have a hierarchy of generals on the table. |
USAFpilot | 23 Nov 2013 10:57 a.m. PST |
Not much. Once the first shots are fired and the battle is started, it is in the hands of his subordinates. If the CinC picked his generals wisely and made a good plan then he should not try to micro manage the battle. In a wargame the CinC should be involved mostly with order of battle and deployment/position of units on the battle field before turn 1 of the game. Then from there on out he shows up for the sake of army morale. |
Roderick Robertson | 23 Nov 2013 11:17 a.m. PST |
Don't forget that he can also flee
|
Bandit | 23 Nov 2013 11:46 a.m. PST |
What can a Commander-in-Chief do? Authorize and order the release of nuclear weapons. In the context of horse & musket war-games, yeah a lot of games just treat them as another general but honestly, most games largely ignore Command & Control in any realistic way and many in no way at all. There is a big scalability conflict between C&C and wargaming rules created because we find a set of rules we like that are tactical and then we scale them up to play "the big game." While I'm a big Johnny Reb fan (specifically JR2), it is an excellent example of this problem. The scope of JR2 is a player as a brigade commander. But as wargamers we say, "hey I love these rules, let's use em to play Gettysburg!" I'm completely guilty of this myself and in this common circumstance it plays out just as you say, the C-in-C becomes just another +2 officer. From an objective perspective one should never scale a rule set up or down, a rule set should be written with a given scope and played with that scope. In this second circumstance the C-in-C would have specific abilities to guide events that players would not have through other commanders. I don't mean that he has magic he casts down from the sky, but rather that the rules would need to systemically link a commander and a given player. The C-in-C could transfer command of units between players for example. One of the problems of war-games is that we as the players take communal command of the army. I believe that it will vary slightly per period, I think USAFpilot is wrong that "once the first shots are figured
it is in the hands of his subordinates." Once a force is committed to battle the C-in-C is unlikely to play a role guiding that force any further, but through a battle different forces are committed at different times, forces are ordered to retreat, etc. So the C-in-C doesn't have nothing to do, but he does have less to do. As far as the concept of "army morale" goes I don't understand the C-in-C taking that test, it is pretty common for a commander to remain committed to a fight while his forces evacuate the field so it really isn't determined primarily on him. Cheers, The Bandit |
Caliban | 23 Nov 2013 11:58 a.m. PST |
To widen the discussion a little: in our long-running ancients campaign, we gave certain "Great Captains" extra, albeit limited, abilities to try to reflect their historical effects and also to make their effect on the tabletop a bit more interesting. So Alexander was able to lead the Companions personally with significant morale and combat bonuses, and they counted as a unit under his direct command outwith the normal command structure. Hannibal was allowed to use his Gallic and Spanish infantry to soak up Roman aggression – these guys didn't count as part of the army morale and didn't cause tests on other units when they routed. Also, if the Gauls were not in close formation they were able to set up outside the normal deployment zones. Scipio was able to rearrange the standard Roman consular army so that he could do things like send the Triarii wide, or put allied troops in the centre of the line. We found that the combination of this kind of flavour plus the armies themselves really brought out the "characters" (for lack of a better word) of the various famous leaders. Having said that, Alexander got himself so badly wounded so often that he had to retire from the campaign prematurely! What that shows is that the special rules didn't unduly balance the games, which is always a consideration. Besides, this sort of thing is much more interesting than straightforward extensions to command, melee or morale effects
|
Mark Plant | 23 Nov 2013 12:27 p.m. PST |
Not much. Once the first shots are fired and the battle is started, it is in the hands of his subordinates. Tosh! Did Napoleon honestly just sit there, looking good? I could have sworn he made some decisive contributions to at least one or two of his battles! The CiC releases the reserves to the appropriate places at the appropriate times. That's why they had army reserves -- precisely so the commander could command. Then he had to decided when the battle was won and lost. If won, he had to tell sub-commanders to press on, even though the enemy in their sector appeared strong. If lost, he had to tell divisions that were winning their sector to withdraw, so that the army would not be split, with those remaining being captured because no-one had the sense to warn them. In between he had to ensure that a flow of information was kept, so that individual commanders knew how to co-ordinate with those around them. Nothing loses a battle faster than holes appearing when separate divisions operate without regard to each other. It's well known that poor armies can be transformed by a good commander, and good armies ruined by a bad one. How can that be if the commander is a passenger? |
Sparker | 23 Nov 2013 1:31 p.m. PST |
Alocate Army Level weapons and formations to what he considers to be the Main Effort. |
doc mcb | 23 Nov 2013 1:59 p.m. PST |
I tell my American Government classes that the president, as CinC, is responsible for GRAND strategy, integrating economic and political and moral considerations ("War to End War," "Evil Empire", etc.) alongside the strictly military. |
MajorB | 23 Nov 2013 2:31 p.m. PST |
I tell my American Government classes that the president, as CinC, is responsible for GRAND strategy, integrating economic and political and moral considerations ("War to End War," "Evil Empire", etc.) alongside the strictly military. Thank you, but I'm looking for thoughts on a CinC on the battlefield. |
doc mcb | 23 Nov 2013 2:45 p.m. PST |
Well, in that case I'd say he controls the reserve. |
Martin Rapier | 24 Nov 2013 3:04 a.m. PST |
Well, he decides the initial deployment, and commits reserves. Clauswitzes card based battle game described in Phil Sabins 'Simulating War' models this rather well. If I wasn't on this crappy tablet, I might type a description. Maybe later. |
Mako11 | 24 Nov 2013 5:06 p.m. PST |
|
|