"Umpapa's Chain of Command AAR & Opinion" Topic

My first Chain of Command game AAR and some humble opinion after few games:
link

Enjoyed your pro/con conclusion of the game. I really want to like this game. I think your "con" list nailed all problems I have with the game. I don't think they necessarily break the game, but may need some "house rules" to fix them.

I also enjoyed the rules and I agree with what you've posted, but I'm more critical of the jump off points. They work with patrol type of scenarios, but I find them completely useless for attacks on static positions. The side that is static knows he'll be attacked, so it's pointless for the attackers to "teleport" all over the battlefield! LOL!
Just my opinion…

so it's pointless for the attackers to "teleport" all over the battlefield! LOL!

This is a common misunderstanding of the purpose and function of jump-off points. They do not represent troops "teleporting" anywhere. What they do represent are the points at which advancing troops become identifiable to the enemy and thus open to the possibility of being attacked. This is clearly explained in the rules.

There are a couple of YouTube videos that explain the role of jump-off points as well. Links from Lard Island News.

Phil

Umpapa, glad your conclusion was that you liked the rules. I hope you don't mind if I address some of your "Con" points here.

- opaque, convoluted and incomplete manual (where are the rules for commisars? in FAQ, but not in the rules);

We have made it quite clear from the outset that the role of a Commissar changes as the war develops through different phases. We are providing Commissar rules with the free download Army lists that we are producing.

- too many dice rolls, at least for me;

Okay, but not for me. 8^D Dice are rolled when you move and when you fire, they are also used for the command and control system.

- mechanical activation with the dice leads to specific sets of teams & section (f.ex. it is better to have at least one separate team), which makes the game sometimes unrealistic;

I totally disagree. The more you break your force down into teams the harder they are to control. If you keep them all together the easier they are to control. That is totally realistic.

- mechanics of activation is annoying sometimes, such as the lack of any useful way to use either single "6" or four "6";

And that is entirely at the heart of the game. The Command & Control system is designed to give you command decisions to make in each phase of each turn. The fact that you can't do everything you want means you have to prioritise and do the most important things. Again this seems to me to be totally realistic.

- falling into a trap (typical of many games) of ahistorical tactics of placing senior commander alone between (and in LOS of) sections – in fact the commander very rarely walks away from his sections, he usually moves with them just switch from one to another;

The rules encourage you to put your squad leader where they would have been placed historically according to each nation's tactical manual. So, the German squad leader gets bonuses when he is with his LMG directing fire. The British section leader gets bonuses when he is with his manoeuvre element. Are there situations when he needs to move between the two to better control them? Yes, but the this is a command decision the player must take.

- old-fashioned blog of authors, without tags ;

Is this REALLY a fair criticism of the rule set? The blog is unpdated regularly with loads of additional material. If we can improve it we will, but this is a criticism of the web site, not of the rules.

- unnatural, though enjoyable role of "jump- off points" – they are fun albeit ahistorical;

They are totally historical. They are explained fully in the rules. They represent the points where your patrols have identified as being held by the enemy. For you they represent safe points to which you can deploy your men quickly and without danger. You, as the platoon commander, are required to read the battle and deploy your troops to where they can best influence the result. Any further forward and your troops will be more circumspect in they advance. The concept is take straight out of WWII command manuals.

So, when an enemy shows up at a point where your patrols identified as being in enemy hands that is hardly surprising. Part of your job is to identify where the enemy is by scouting the battlefield and probing against his positions. The Jump-Off points allow this to happen in a totally historical manner. If you can oblige your opponent to deploy his force before you deploy all of yours, you have a significant advantage which will allow you to focus your strength where he is weakest.

Are the jump-off points an abstraction? Yes, but they then allow you to play the game in a totally historical manner. As for the teleporting Abelp01 mentions? That just isn't the case. Once a unit is deployed into an action it is where it is, it cannot teleport anywhere else. Can units deploy to the jump-off point when they have yet to be deployed to the table? Yes, of course they can. As mentioned these are points to which they have safe and rapid access thanks to the area having already been secured. That is real life, no teleporting necessary.

- lack of role for runners (begs for using them as an abstract tool to assist in the command);

Too right. This is a platoon plus sized game. We are not focussing on every action of every man. To do so would be to focus on the trees to the degree that one could not see the wood. I think that would spoil the game. You may, of course, ad such additional detail should you wish.

- imbalance all options CoC Dices – since the most powerful and most often is End a turn, perhaps the cost of using CoC Dice superpowers should be diversified, counting in numer of accumulated "fives"? For example, interrupting an opponents's Phase with a single infantry Team would deduce four "fives", and with single Section would deduct five "fives"?

Again, like runners, I think you're in danger of over-complicating things. The game is a simple one to play, but the command decisions you are required to make ensure that you are kept busy with choices to make which affect the end result. Adding more complexity is rarely repaid with more enjoyment. However, once again, you can add all sorts of stuff like this if you want more nitty-gritty detail.

Funnily enough I was just commenting on another report posted on TMP earlier today. Chain of Command has just been nominated for an Origins Award, so it certainly seems like lots of people are enjoying them.

Cheers

Rich

Yep, understood, still don't think it's necessary in the example I gave above!

I've found the rules ot be excellent.

Abelp01, you said: "They work with patrol type of scenarios, but I find them completely useless for attacks on static positions. The side that is static knows he'll be attacked, so it's pointless for the attackers to "teleport" all over the battlefield! LOL!"

However, the patrol phase does influence the game hugely by determining where you are defending and where I am attacking from. We could play the same game over the same terrain twice and end up with completely different start points depending on the patrol phase.

Yes, you know you're going to be attacked, but you don't know, and cannot know at which point on the table I will focus my attack.

Likewise, unless I push up against your positions I will only know the general area of your positions, I won't know where you are specifically deployed. In order to attack effectively I need to identify your positions in order to create a schwerpunkt against the point where you are weak.

I can't see an "LOL!" in any of that I'm afraid. Just basic military principles.

Cheers

Rich

Having not tried CoC I have only the vaguest of opinions on the game.
From people's descriptions I did wonder if maybe the initial patrolling thing is better suited to encounter battles than attack defence.

In attack defence games we routinely map deploy the defenders. Only obvious fixed defences like bunkers, wire, marked minefields or tanks in the middle of a field are placed on table.
The attackers deploy and defenders are revealed only as they are sighted.
I would have thought you could substitute this approach easy enough and give it a go.
You either need to trust your opponent, have a ref or the defender can't move without being placed on table.

Congratulations on the award, Rich.

I have played CoC three times now, and thoroughly enjoyed it. CoC pretty much ties Disposable Heroes for me on fun factor, so I decided to take my two favorite games and combine them.
Patrol phase from CoC ported over to DH makes for a great game. To add to what Rich said, the Patrol Phase is really intuitive and makes complete sense if you read the explanation of it.

Would CoC lend itself to The Great War. ie urban warfare or early days advancing through woods and rural settings, or trench raids? Anyone tried this??

Just curious

I though they were good points Tim.
And I think the thread is at that sort of point it's pretty much done.

Suspense is under-rated.
Hiding stuff is good.
The reason we go to such lengths with the double blind games is because suspense adds so much.

I tend to use box files.
You can easily brief the sides without anyone "accidentally" seeing what you have.

There's also the old decoy thing. All german tanks are tigers until seen at close enough range to identify. All guns are 88s. Perhaps a previously destroyed tank placed inside a BUA that the attackers need to recce or destroy again.
Odd how that Panther hasn't fire on us yet.
That kind of thing.

In the double blind games, tanks are often given very limited ammo. randomly blowing the hell out of houses might be somewhat realistic but it rather blows the point on a 4x4 table.
We use small tables because the set up is extremely labour intensive. A larger table would also be more expensive since you need 2 of each resin building.

Thank You for adressing me. I am sincerely honoured.

Sorry for not answering before:

- opaque, convoluted and incomplete manual (where are the rules for commisars? in FAQ, but not in the rules);

We have made it quite clear from the outset that the role of a Commissar changes as the war develops through different phases. We are providing Commissar rules with the free download Army lists that we are producing.

I am afraid that it is not explained in the rules (and army list in the rules), really sorry.

Maybe expanding the index wouldnt be a bad idea, also?

Please take a look f,ex, at Gruntz. Frankly I like (and respect for innovativeness) CoC more than Gruntz, but Gruntz is presented very well, much better than CoC. I dont know, CoC rules were just difficult to read for me.

- too many dice rolls, at least for me;

Okay, but not for me. 8^D Dice are rolled when you move and when you fire, they are also used for the command and control system.

Well, my tankodesantniks squads often rolls 22 (6+4x4) d6 for hit and then approximately 11 d6 for effect. 33 dices for resolving one combat is for me suboptimal.

Guys, You are geniuses. You could reduce it a bit, I dunno just triple SMG hits in close combat.

This game is so elegant and now this bucket of dice, as a dissonance.

- mechanical activation with the dice leads to specific sets of teams & section (f.ex. it is better to have at least one separate team), which makes the game sometimes unrealistic;

I totally disagree. The more you break your force down into teams the harder they are to control. If you keep them all together the easier they are to control. That is totally realistic;

I agree with what You said. I was not enough clear so please let me reiterate: having no teams at all (just sections and leaders) is suboptimal tactics, because all those rolled "1" (statistically nearly one every phase) have to be consumed into larger numbers. From the powergaming point of view it is good to have at least one team. Usually You have one, but sometimes (rarely!) You do not and then IMVHO You are mechanically pressed by rules to detach team from section, which unfortunately happens to be ,for my taste, a bit gamey.

- mechanics of activation is annoying sometimes, such as the lack of any useful way to use either single "6" or four "6";

And that is entirely at the heart of the game. The Command & Control system is designed to give you command decisions to make in each phase of each turn. The fact that you can't do everything you want means you have to prioritise and do the most important things. Again this seems to me to be totally realistic.

I agree, but I am afraid You missed my point. If I roll with MY dice for MY force, I wish all results were working for ME. "5" are OK, giving hope for better future.
"2" are workhorse, as "1" (if You have teams). "3" and "4" are very good if not multiplied. But rolling "6" is annoying, since, double and triple "6" are good, but single "6" is plainly bad. You can tell that rolling three "4" is also bad – but rolling single "6" is very probaly (nearly every phase), while rolling three "4" is very rare.

If only this single "6" could be counted as "5", or let do something positive… Please consider doing something about it in next edition…. pretty please…

- falling into a trap (typical of many games) of ahistorical tactics of placing senior commander alone between (and in LOS of) sections – in fact the commander very rarely walks away from his sections, he usually moves with them just switch from one to another;

The rules encourage you to put your squad leader where they would have been placed historically according to each nation's tactical manual. So, the German squad leader gets bonuses when he is with his LMG directing fire. The British section leader gets bonuses when he is with his manoeuvre element. Are there situations when he needs to move between the two to better control them? Yes, but the this is a command decision the player must take.

I agree with Your assumptions.
Unfortunately sometimes in our games senior leaders were put between sections, too often for me.
However I eagerly admit that in CoC those ahistorical situation arose less often then in other rules. In many, many other rules such situation is typical, which is really strange.
So I step back, and I admit I was too critical about it.

old-fashioned blog of authors, without tags ;

Is this REALLY a fair criticism of the rule set? The blog is unpdated regularly with loads of additional material. If we can improve it we will, but this is a criticism of the web site, not of the rules.

Sir, since I put Your great blog as a "Pro", not mentioning its untagness as a "Contra" would be unfair, I suppose. (It is full of material, but it for me it is difficult to navigate without tags.) But OK, I will change it as a modifier to "Pro".

- unnatural, though enjoyable role of "jump- off points" – they are fun albeit ahistorical;

They are totally historical.

After rereading Your blog, You persuaded me about historicity of jump-off points. I will correct it.

I am sorry if I seemed to be harsh, it was not my intent to. In fact those are one of the best rules I played, sincerely.
Just John 8:32.

Good luck with Origin Awards, I am convinced that you will get it!

Thanks for all comments.
Funnily enough, today I usually play with hidden deployment of defender, semirandom composition of forces, semirandom level of morale and leadership, "every tank till shoot is a Tiger/IS/Firefly" masking rule and "every forest/house is full of infantry and antitank guns" option, "teleporting irregulars" and other camouflaging techniqes. Still I admire elegance of CoC.

"having no teams at all (just sections and leaders) is suboptimal tactics, because all those rolled "1" (statistically nearly one every phase) have to be consumed into larger numbers."

I just want to point out that for most nations, rolling a 1 allows you to activate a team within a section/squad. The team does not have to be separate from the rest of the section/squad. For the nations that do not have inherent teams such as the Russians and Italians, well they did have the reputation of not being tactically flexible and this shows up in this way.

As far as that single 6 or rolling more than two 4s, it just means that you have less "activations" in that particular phase. It means that you cannot count on being able to use all of your command dice in some way. But it cuts both ways because the same thing can happen for your opponent.

Tim, yes CoC is basically platoon on platoon, but you can introduce an element of uncertainty by not revealing the support options until they deploy.

I think the order of things is that you determine the terrain and scenario type. Then you pick your support options. It's in this latter point you can have your unknown forces. You keep all of your troops hidden in a box or whatever until you deploy them.

Also, there's nothing preventing you from only having two squads/sections in the platoon. In the western desert campaign in the Lardie blog, one side chose to go with two larger sections instead of three reduced ones in one battle.

It's worth noting that even if you have no individual teams (no 2 cm mortar, lmg team etc) you can add that 1 to something else.

If you get a 1 and a 2, combine them to a 3 and get the extra options from activating a leader.