"Chain of Command patrol phase. Is it unique?" Topic

We hear an awful lot of comments about nothing being new in rule sets these days, but I have been playing Chain of Command recently and the pre-game patrol phase is not something I have ever come across before. Is it a new idea, or has it been used before?

A similar idea was in a TFL special a year or so before, a patrol phase for IABSM. But since that was Lardy too it still counts as a new idea for me.

seems pretty new to me, never even heard a rumour of such an idea before. You are essentially creating half the scenario (the deployment areas and objectives) as you start playing.

and the doomsayers claiming there's nothing new are just bitter and looking at stuff with broad brushes; if you're going to say we're just playing with model figures and dice then no, nothing is new. The devil is in the details.

Peter Pig rules have been doing the pre-game phase for years?

yes but not the same way

Just remember--new is not always better.

Honestly, it's just a gimmick/twist to get figures into shooting range quicker so we can finish the game quicker. How unique? Not sure. As I've mentioned in the past, I prefer WWII board games, which for the past decade have been innovating far more than miniature games have been. Miniature gamers really need to steal more ideas from their board brethren. :-)

Mister Tibbles, Which board games do you recommend for WWII? I've never played any board games at tactical level, does such a thing exist?

I'm not sure I agree that board games have been innovating "far more" than miniature games. While there are a number of creative games and designers in the boardgame world, they also have the advantage of usually designing for a closed system, where miniatures rules have to be open, and adaptable to virtually any set of circumstances and scenarios. When you're desiging for effect for specific scenarios, that makes some design choices a bit easier.

How does the Chain of Command patrol phase work?

I have seen pre-game scouting phases in rules going back to late 80's.

The patrol phase is different to any other pre-game phase I've seen. You move patrol markers, keeping them within 12" of each other. When they get within 12" of enemy markers, they 'lock down'. The end result is to define the two front lines; which than lets you place your jump-off points for the main game.
It works well, and is a clever little sub-game.

Not sure why anyone would care really.
Does it make it a better game if a mechanic is unique?

It's an extension of blinds – which have been used for years in systems such as principles of war.
Similarly campaign gaming where you map move and the referee tells you when enemy are ahead.
You then have a sub game with light cavalry and infantry to see who out scouts each other to give a deployment advantage.

I've used fuzzy placement of units for maybe 20 years now.
Instead of a full unit you start with a single figure until it encounters enemy at which time you deploy the rest. The advantaged player picks who deploys first. And various permutations.
Whilst using this mechanic, it is to the players advantage to maintain a "line".

The patrol phase as a pre setup manouvre sequence where units lock each other down by proximity in itself isnt unique. My friday night group used this to determine napoleonic battle set ups.

What does seem unique is that the system is played out on the table….we used a small board representing the table.

…and the deployment positions are formed into arcs forcing back the 'jump off' points. The patrol markers arent actually where the patrol is, but are the area where the patrolling troops can spot into and beyond by up to 12 inches. As such the jump off points represent the locations where you can deploy outside spotting range of the enemy. The arcs they form are the limiting locations where you could actually be. The important point of this development is that they then linked the command phase and deployment into this, creating a hidden deployment system without any record keeping and keep the actual deployment within control of the player and subsequent committment of troops is a very big part of the game

that is what I would say is unique…Rich and the boys deserve a good bit of credit for doing this.

Similar ideas can be found in wargaming books in the 60s and 70s – I think (but this is from memory), Featherstone's Solo Wargaming book has something similar.

But it's one thing to have an idea, and another thing to develop it into a workable mechanic that plays smoothly and that fits into the rules as a whole. Probably CoC deserves credit for the latter.

The system makes the chore of working out deployment and hidden units a breeze. FOW had a similar mechanic for ambushes, the infamous "teleporting Tank Destroyers" and was rather more arbitrary, but it was a fairly simple rule that did something that might require extremely complex ones to "simulate properly" and still ranks as my favourite "best ever stupid rule".

Perhaps the most impressive feature of CoC is that is a very streamlined system that does an OK job of portraying WWII combat without cutting corners or assigning troops some imaginary ability disguised as "National Characteristics" I guess that specialists will find many flaws in it, but the mix of relatively low complexity and realism makes it a winner imho.

It sounds similar to the front line determination from Forming Up Points in 'Great Battles of WW2', albeit at tactical rather than operational level.

The specific implementation of the mechanics do sound unique though.

> Mister Tibbles, Which board games do you recommend for WWII? I've never played any board games at tactical level, does such a thing exist?

Lots of them out there.
Panzer, MBT, IDF, and 88 are one series of games.
ASL (not just a game, it is a way of life).
Combat Commander (GMT).
The First Combat series from GDW (Sands of War, Team Yankee, Blood and Thunder).
Fighting Formations from GMT.
The Original Squad Leader (available from Ebay).
Advanced Tobruk from Critical Hit games.
Awakening the Bear (first in a series, I forget whose)
Lock N Load series of WWII games.
Panzer Blitz, Panzer Leader, Arab Israeli Wars (ebay)
Landships (WWI game)

"Not sure why anyone would care really.
Does it make it a better game if a mechanic is unique?"

As stated in my original post, I am interested because it isn't often one finds something new. We are so often told that nothing in rules is new, and I was wondering if this was the rare exception which proved, or disproved, the rule.

Blinds, you know where something is going to be.
Pregame campaign is a PITA, face it have any of us really been able to do pregame map movement to establish the start lines etc.? I've been in numerous campaigns, all of which fizzled out after a few games (if they lasted longer than the planning)
The Patrol Phase in CoC establishes your start line and jump off points but then you have the flexibility to deploy from any of your jump off points as the game develops. I've read the old Featherstone books and fuzzy ideas in Miniature Wargames etc. through the years and the Patrol Phase in CoC is very new and most importantly very workable plus it adds a new dimension to the game.

I'd say not only is the patrol phase (in this manner) a new,unique idea, but so is the command activation system.

For those not familiar, you roll a number of command dice based on the size and training/experience of your force, and these go down as your force takes casualties. Then the dice give you options on the number of and type of units you are able to activate, and the player decides how to apply them. Then, once the dice are allocated to various units, the player decides how to utilize team and leader initiatives to have the troops act.

I'm probably making it sound more complex than it is, but it's actually very straightforward and easy to grasp. Other rulesets have dice-roll activation systems, but, as far as I know, these are either DBA-command pip type systems to determine how many units get to activate, or BKC/Black Powder type rolls to determine how many actions a unit gets to carry out. So, CoC is unique for this as well.

V/R,
Jack

The activation system, while a unique spin, has been used in Card Driven Boardgames for a long time. The For the People, We The People, and Washington's War games all have leaders rated as 1,2,3. Cards have a 1,2,3 on them as well, leaders can only be activated by a card of their level or better.

Rolling a handful of dice to to allocate all at once is something I have not seen before though.

I've never seen the dice system of command used in COC in in any card system. In fact I am not sure I have seen it used anywhere…The only link I can think of to a card system is that It's not completely unlike a varient of poker dice

The command dice have some really interesting features. Not only can they be used to activate units, more importantly they activate leaders. Units can move and fire, but leaders motivate troops, make sure they use their training properly, and in the case of senior leaders, they can activate multiple units.

So unlike many games, where leaders are just there to keep morale going, leaders really can make a huge difference and their proper use can make the difference between winning the battle or losing it.

The pre-battle patrol thing sounds neat, I'll have to try Chain of Command sometimes.

It is a really fun game and I do think it is rather unique in many of its rules. I don't think that that is necessarily "important", just interesting in general.

As a gamer who began my gaming back in the early 70's and became an avowed "rules junky" with my purchase of Tractics in '75 or so, I can state that Chain of Command is unique. Elements of CoC are not new when looked at individually, even the patrol phase, but its how they are combined and made into a playable format that makes it new. By playable I mean several things; first, you can get a decent game in an evening, secondly the game doesn't create a lot of down time for the player who doesn't currently hold the initiative and it gives good results based upon the decisions of the player not just the dice roll. It is my opinion that it plays very well and produces a fun game.

To me another indication of the strength of a rule set is how well the base mechanics can be modified for other conflicts. Chain of Command so far in my minor experiments can easily be translated into Modern, Vietnam and even WW1. This to me enhances the standing of CoC as a solid set of rules.

Is it for everyone? No. But I think people should give this game a try. You really can't pass a proper judgement on this rule set or any set of rules for that matter, until you've actually played them. You'll never catch me giving any opinion about how rules seem to play until I've played them. (I'll comment on how they read but ot how they play)

I also think it will become the benchmark against which skirmish games are measured in the future. As a completely new idea in gaming when looked at as a whole I would say it is, even if elements of it can be found elsewhere. It is most certainly unique. Mr Tibbles led his comments with something along the lines of new is not always better which is very true. But in this case it's my opinion that this "new" is better.

For those not familiar, you roll a number of command dice based on the size and training/experience of your force, and these go down as your force takes casualties. Then the dice give you options on the number of and type of units you are able to activate, and the player decides how to apply them. Then, once the dice are allocated to various units, the player decides how to utilize team and leader initiatives to have the troops act.

Sounds like a system I played with a friend who had designed such command rules about 15 years ago. I think he played a few games with TFL. Good ideas are often floated in discussions before someone produces and publishes them – Wargames Developments is a good 'hothouse' for discussions. Each variant is unique in its own way. Given that CoC is getting good reviews congratulations to TFL on them but it is not a set that interests me.

Not sure why anyone would care really.
Does it make it a better game if a mechanic is unique?

I would care. If the mechanic is unique and produces a good game, then it is providing a new and different game experience. Why wouldn't I be interested?

It's an extension of blinds – which have been used for years in systems such as principles of war.
Similarly campaign gaming where you map move and the referee tells you when enemy are ahead.
You then have a sub game with light cavalry and infantry to see who out scouts each other to give a deployment advantage.

Most all rules have origins and history, and often similar ideas are carried out in different ways during the same time, even without cross-fertilization.

What CoC has done is represent something in a competitive sub-game that hadn't been done before, even with blinds and hidden movement. The approach is much simpler and much closer to the actual thinking among commanders at the tactical level it represents. I'm not so sure about the command dice being either all that different from some other systems I've seen, but not identical either.

It does continually surprise me how different rules are seen as totally unique--or impossible--even though they were done fifteen to twenty-five years ago. The hobby has a relatively short memory at times…

And like hagenthedwarf, the period isn't one that interests me all that much. However, the visual scale and system of CoC is intriguing.

'it's an extension of blinds'

I actually see it as the opposite of blinds…

blinds represent a position where something might be.

Everywhere without a blind is empty…

proximity to the patrol markers are positions where you can be spotted from…as such the space between the locked down patrol markers can be determined as empty. The mechanism of forcing back the 'jump off' points pushes you into cover or outside of spotting distance, but since you can deploy forward off the 'jump off' point again, you can only assume that the space between the patrol markers is empty, then after the jump off points are deployed, you can determine that spaces outside deployment range of them are also empty.

'It does continually surprise me how different rules are seen as totally unique--or impossible--even though they were done fifteen to twenty-five years ago.'

Some of us have been wargaming since we were kids and grew up with what would now be described as 'complex' rules….especially naval ones….which is why it seems incredable that people claim they need 'rules for kids'. It does seem that people demand and require spoonfeeding a lot more than in the past.

Familiarity also makes you beleive a set of rules are easy.

GQ3 is a set some people beleive is complicated but those who play them a lot dont see them as difficult.

Spearhead and modern spearhead did something which I found to be unique, (they gave a divisional sized wargame with good representation of the difference in platoons and their interactions in a battalion formation) without having anything in them that was particularly unique other than having some pretty severe player restrictions..even the command system came from Shako.

The 'FEED ME' wargamer generation seem to want freedom to do anything, then complain about the other guy on the opposite side of the table doing it.

I was generalising with the term blinds.
I think you're assuming a very specific implementation.

Spearhead and modern spearhead did something which I found to be unique, (they gave a divisional sized wargame with good representation of the difference in platoons and their interactions in a battalion formation) without having anything in them that was particularly unique other than having some pretty severe player restrictions..even the command system came from Shako.

I find that any number of gamers [including me at times] will make conclusions about games by reading the rules, when the real game is how all the rules interact, and those dynamics most often can't be seen by just reading the rules. Simple rules can create complex and interesting dynamics… like chess or poker.

I even tried resading this post but failed utterly at the first hurdle. What real range does 12" represent. What terrain or situation make the units "Go to Ground". How many hours does this bit of the game represent. If its more than say 4 hours, troops on both sides will have started to dig othetr than the patrols, Inless than that they may have dug shell scrapes. Can sombody tell me the the fundamental times scales and resons for this 12" and does it vary with terrain?

Ground scale is 1:100 in Chain of Command.
So 12" represents 100 feet, but that only matters once you start the battle; it has no bearing on the pre-battle phase.

As to your other questions; the patrol phase is a semi-abstract way of determining where the front lines are at the start of the battle. It isn't supposed to represent anything specific; the distance between markers is determined by the table size, not the ground scale. 12" lets you cover the whole of a 6 foot table with 4 markers.
So asking about time scales and what 12" represents rather misses the point; it's just a neat way of determining what the front lines are before the battle starts. Jump-off points are placed some way back from the patrol markers, in cover.

As to your other questions; the patrol phase is a semi-abstract way of determining where the front lines are at the start of the battle.

It is semi-abstract, but does represent how patrols would establish 'front lines' at the tactical level, and what that meant for 'safe' deployment/jump-off areas.

Surely a "jump off point" would be out of enemy sight. As the board is only 600ft max or 182m effective range of a automatic rifle, surely your jump off point would be in hidden terrain. Otherwise you would be dead meat, as infantry the first MG that fired would do for you, As you would have nowhere to run. (old agage get off th killing ground). Surely you have to relate the scale and deployment to typical operational requirements?

The jump off points are positioned on average 6" back from the patrol markers and in cover (or I believe the nearest available cover after 6") if there's no cover to get behind then the units will deploy from the table edge along the line taken back from the patrol marker (the zone/line taken is worked out relative to the nearest enemy patrol markers) so in effect units coming on from the table edge (in the event that no cover is available) would be a very similar deployment method as other systems. So long point short, the jump off is in cover, or table edge if none available.

Hope that help!

A