"As a wargamer, do you follow the C-in-C's orders?" Topic

I will listen politely, and if I think they make sense, then, yes. I will follow orders.

I love it when you say "I'm thinking we should do this" and the person agrees, then immediately does something differently.

Generally yes, it is part of the roleplaying.

I don't understand the question.
I'm trying to win a battle against my mate here, what is a C-in-C and who gave it the right to order me around?

Sincerely,
A concerned foreign civilian

To be totally honest, I have never played in a game where someone was the c in c.

Matthew

I actually like it better when the commanders/players have incentive to do their own objectives.

If I happen to be sporting a ruff and a codpiece, all bets are off.

I follow the German school of leadership. You give me an objective and figure I am smart enough to figure out how to do it. No need to micromanage me.

As a knight, that would be inconceivable. If I happen to agree (seldom) then my actions will mirror what the commander's "orders" are. I usually know as much or more about the situation than some jumped-up commander….

If we are roleplaying a command structure, then yes of course. If their intentions are unclear or open to misinterpretation, then that is their lookout. As Patton said, 'giving orders is easy, getting them obeyed is hard'.

If it is just someone giving me the benefit of their immense wisdom, then probably not.

More seriously, it depends on the context, and what you mean by 'obeying orders', particularly missions/objectives vs micromanagement. In a CinC role (and I've done it plenty of times) it simply isn't possible to micro manage everything, you need to give a clear statement of direction and let the players get on with it.

Often the single biggest influence the CinC has on the battle is the initial deployment and release of reserves, which is as it should be.

to the letter… like a genie misinterpreting all their commands as much as possible.

At a con I was once the Polish force commander in a 3 on 3 Cold War Commander game, there was a Soviet B division and an elite/airborne division, who was also the C-in-C for our side.

We had an initial discussion of plans, and we settled on one, which mainly depended on a) a rapid deployment by the airborne unit and b) the Poles getting NATO's attention.

The airborne's objective was seized by NATO before they even had a chance to get on the table, leaving the Poles (me) with NATO's attention (2/3 of the table shooting at me, plus the USMC redeploying to whack me instead of the perfectly whackable Russians over there).

So I started to command my forces to account for that reality (like finding cover and seizing defensible terrain), which had me drifting to one flank, which upset the C-in-C (who's airborne were now deploying at the table's edge and walking into combat). I pointed out I was acting in a perfectly reasonable Polish manner, and that I'd get back to the plan once my butt wasn't getting kicked…

So to answer the OP, sometimes.

to the letter…

Which generally irritates the heck out of them.
I do it to.

from: link

The war with the Latins was attended with some circumstances showing strongly the stern and indomitable spirit of the Romans. This war was carried into Campania, in Southern Italy; and here, on a celebrated occasion, when the two armies lay encamped in close vicinity on the plain of Capua, the Roman consuls issued a strict order against skirmishing or engaging in single encounters with the enemy. The two peoples were alike in arms and in language, and it was feared that such chance combats might lead to confusion and disaster.

The only man to disobey this order was T. Manlius, the son of one of the consuls. A Latin warrior, Germinus Metius, of Tusculum, challenged young Manlius to meet him in single combat; and the youthful warrior, fired by ambition and warlike zeal, and eager to sustain the honor of Rome, accepted the challenge, despite his father's order. If killed, his fault would be atoned; if successful, victory over a noted warrior must win him pardon and praise.

The duel that ensued was a fierce and gallant one. It ended in the triumph of the young Roman, who laid his antagonist dead at his feet. Shouts of triumph from the Roman soldiers hailed his victory; and when he had despoiled his slain foe of his arms, and borne them triumphantly from the field, the exultation of the Romans was as unbounded as the chagrin of the Latins was deep. Towards his father's tent the young victor proudly went, through exulting lines of troops, and laid his spoils in triumph at the feet of the stern old man.

The poor youth, the rejoicing soldiers, knew not the man with whom they had to deal. A military order had been disobeyed. To old Manlius the fact that the culprit was his son, and that he had added honor to the Roman arms, weighed nothing. Discipline stood above affection or victory. Turning coldly away, the iron-hearted old Roman ordered that the soldiers should be immediately summoned to the prætorium, or general's tent, and that his son should be beheaded before them.

This cruel and inhuman order filled the whole army with horror. Yet none dared interfere, and the unnatural mandate was obeyed, in full view an army whose late exultation was turned to deep woe and indignation. The youngest soldiers never forgave the consul for his inhuman act, but regard him with abhorrence to the end of his life. But their hatred was mingled with fear and respect, and the stern lesson taught was doubtless felt for years in the discipline of the armies of Rome.

Never had a game with a C in C, other then me that is.

Playing Paintball, yes I followed the lead's orders.

Generally, I play skirmish games where there is no such command structure. When I do play games with such a command structure, there usually still isn't a c-in-c, since that billet is a non-existent NPC and its orders are part of the scenario for the players who are in a competitive-collaboartive environment (all must work together to achieve the common goal, but someone will come out ahead).

On the rare occasion that I am in a situation with a player c-in-c, it depends on whether or not a value the c-in-c's expertise.

I played a game as a supporting commander where I blatantly ignored orders, pleas, and foul-language from my supported commander requesting I focus my efforts on supporting his locally commanded force. I had to leave due to an outside committment and ceded my forces to the c-in-c. The next day my compatriots lamented as the c-in-c did bulwark his position with the additional forces under his direct command as the entire rest of the operation crumbled from within. He blamed the lateness of the "proper" use of my forces, however it is hard to accept that lack of early support for his high value unit escort force was to blame for the fact that the forces I was engaging before I left had destroyed the destination before the HVU got there.

We usually play large battle with multiple sub-commanders and have a C-in-C for each side. Usually we still come up with a plan together and then that person runs the C-in-C on the table.

I always prefer when they then act like the c-in-c as opposed to sometimes when players treat the c-in-c fig and it's command abilities as a subordinate to the sub-commander.

Ok who needs him this turn, I'm ok so you can use him, etc.

I generally do what my wife tells me…

Excellent quote, Korvessa.

I prefer to work on my own initiative.

Absolutely to the letter. Someone has to be C-in-C. We can't all be in charge. Where's the fun in that? Part of my fun in wargaming is that you have to do things you wouldn't normally because someone else orders you to do so.

Sometimes its fun to not actually tell the C-in-C he's screwing up. Give a man a long leash and he'll hang himself.

If we get flogged then you have a ineptitude get out clause and it provides fuel for ripping it out of the C-in-C for weeks to come.

:-)

Such is the nature of my gaming group.

:-)

Kev

We often play multi player games with a designated leader. I try to follow orders, but always modify them if I feel they are wrong.

The best orders are general directions and aims, which allow sub commanders a good deal of lattitude in action to achieve the objective.

Our monthly group napoleonic games always feature team sides with CinC for each side.

Sub Commanders have a senior level specific order coding which limits what their divisional orders selections can be. If orders are to "hold a position", then no "Attack" orders allowed. If to "advance their position" then no Defend order permitted.

Order selections for low level commands are:

Reserve (reserve or rest in place)
March (generally a transit type of order)
Engage (distant skirmishing or pin your nearby enemy formations in place)
Defend (hold a outlined position or zone)
Attack (no restrictions except you are burning army fatigue points fast)

Sample of the orders chart: PDF link

M

Orders?

I like to think of it as a suggestion…

We usually make a plan with one person being the deciding one, our C in C.
We follow orders as the game goes and sometimes change them during the game as necessary with consent of the C in C.

Played an email boardgame of Shilo. I was one of the Union players. After being told for 20 turns (at the rate of 1turn/week) to hold my position I said to myself "to hell with this" and advanced. The guy (CinC) dumped me from his game. No regrets on my part.

We usually nominate the least experienced player CinC so yes, slavishly. It enhances the experience enormously.

Depends on the context.

If the goal of the game is to roleplay and mimic a command structure, then all players should live up to that goal and winning the battle on the table is of 2nd importance only. "Winning" the game is then much more defined in terms of personal character objectives, rather than army objectives. The social contract of the game is then that you act upon orders within character context, otherwise the game is pointless.
But – and this is important – such games require some preparation by both the scenario designer and the player taking on the role of C-in-C. Just as in a classic fantasy roleplaying session, they need to make sure every player gets his slice of the attention (read: all players must have something to do). This is also part of the social contract. The player acting as C-in-C must be aware of this, otherwise the game disintegrates pretty quickly.

On the other hand, ff the primary goal is winning the battle (and different players happen to participate on each side), then a command structure is implemented much more loosely if at all, and an overall plan is more executed by consensus and improvisation rather than adhering to a command structure. In such games, usually the loudest player is C-in-C by default :-)
And yes, these are the games in which orders are disobeyed because someone thinks the overall plan is "stupid", and "instead of holding the hill, I am going to attack no matter what". But I would not call these games with an actual command structure.

When not everyone is clear about the context and goal of the game, or when different players think they are playing in different types of games, then frustration usually follows.

In my personal experience, games with an actual command structure, and where the purpose explicitly is to roleplay that command structure, are best played when the command structure is all on one side, and the enemy is played by the umpire. Then, the umpire also has the opportunity (just as gamesmaster in D&D), to adapt the scenario as the game moves along, to make sure a good time is had by all.

And expecting players to obey commands without defining character goals outside of the battle is very difficult, because there are no good incentives for obeying orders. It is very hard to translate officer-peer-pressure or "if you don't do this, you will be court-martialled"-pressure to the gaming table.

I like to Patton/Rommel it. If it fits in with my glorious chance for an attacking victory then yes. Otherwise, clearly they are a fool not to recognise my genius :D

Explicity, exactly, fully and to the letter and the spirit and I will force other players on my side to do so also. this is even if I think the plan is pure idiocy. If we've learned nothing from studying war it is that evan a bad plan put into action forefully and wholeheartedly will succeed far better than a brilliant plan put into effect haphazardly, halfheartedly, or not at all. The side with a coherent plan will always triumph over a bunch of clowns doing their own thing.

Besides, if we're talking about simulating and realism, that's what real life generals do.

By the way, when the above method has been used I always win. When all players in the game use it we win really big!

"The side with a coherent plan will always triumph over a bunch of clowns doing their own thing."

That is very true, both in terms of wargaming and other human activities.

Unless the game situation gives me an *extremely* compelling reason otherwise, I do the best to follow the orders given to me. That's your job as an officer and a gentleman.

-Will

As best as able,if there is a CINC in the game.

Having to carry out crappy orders would seem to be the utmost in military realism :)