"Out of command" Topic
51 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 avoid recent politics on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the 18th Century Discussion Message Board Back to the SYW Message Board Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of Interest18th Century Napoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase ArticleThe Acolyte Vampires return - based, now, and ready for the game table.
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile ArticleWar of the Spanish Succession figures for the Spanish theater.
Featured Book Review
|
Pages: 1 2
ochoin | 04 Apr 2015 5:55 a.m. PST |
Command radii aren't new. The concept is fine: units in the pre-modern era were not encouraged to use initiative & needed to be in receipt of orders before acting. But how realistic is this? In EVERY case would a unit 'refuse to march towards the guns'? Not charge or retreat as circumstances seemed to dictate? The core of this post: would it be realistic in especially SYW & Napoleonic armies to offer units outside of command range a possibility of action? For example, at the beginning of the movement phase each out of command unit gets a D6 roll & #6 allows it to be moved according to the player's wishes? Or is this NOT in the spirit of Horse & Gun warfare? |
zippyfusenet | 04 Apr 2015 6:09 a.m. PST |
That's exactly how KoenigKrieg works. OOC infantry move on a D6 roll of 1-2, OOC cavalry move on 1-4. I think Napoleon's Battles has a similar rule. If your favorite ruleset doesn't have such a rule, write one yourself. |
ochoin | 04 Apr 2015 6:22 a.m. PST |
Thanks, Zip. I must be cleverer than I thought to come up with this one! |
Garryowen | 04 Apr 2015 6:31 a.m. PST |
In my Sioux Wars rules, I let them activate on "even" on an even/odd die. I just want players to use their leaders and keep some sort of unit or war party integrity. But, I did not want it to be too difficult. Tom |
Who asked this joker | 04 Apr 2015 6:46 a.m. PST |
In my rules units may move as a player wishes unless they've taken a casualties in the previous turn. In this case they must pass a morale check, similar to Fire and Fury. A commander may influence the roll up or down by 1 if he is near by or 2 if he is with the unit but may be killed in the process (on a '6'). It works pretty well and is dead simple. |
zippyfusenet | 04 Apr 2015 6:57 a.m. PST |
Yep, Fire & Fury takes the approach that ability of a unit to move is always subject to a successful dice roll. Being in command can positively influence the roll, as can other bonuses and penalties. F&F was first designed to model the ACW, arguably a less formal era of warfare than the SYW, but the rules have been adapted to Napoleonics, AWI and SYW. |
vtsaogames | 04 Apr 2015 7:06 a.m. PST |
But how realistic is this? Not military, but I have worked in large organizations. Middle management were amazingly averse to taking any real initiative. This would expose them to repercussions if the higher ups didn't agree. Toeing the line never did. One example: I was tasked with designing a small system that compiled data and printed 3 reports. Over time management asked for two of the reports to be suppressed. The last report was sent to people who had never asked for it. I suggested canning the whole system. Oh, that would never do. After a couple years I yanked it without permission and waited to see if anyone complained. No one ever did. But the middle managers over me would not take the risk. So a completely unused system used to run every month for years. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 04 Apr 2015 7:32 a.m. PST |
Command radius rules seem to fall apart when you base games on historical battles; take for instance the deployment of the 2nd Netherlands division units at Quatre Bras. Here we have one command covering an area of 3x 2,000 yards. You just have to throw the rule away when you come to re-fight real battles. It is in difficult terrain that you might have reason to lose control, but the real problem here is about line of sight and coordinating the movement of individual battalions or regiments and then, the coordination of brigades, it is not really a question of a general`s personal abilities, nor his leadership qualities keeping the command glued together. |
zippyfusenet | 04 Apr 2015 7:35 a.m. PST |
Good story, Vincent. And a good point. But. Not all military officers are conservative middle managers. Some fight for a righteous cause. Some fight to make a glorious reputation. Some fight for prize money. I suppose it depends on the army and the era, and the command level, which type of officer is most likely to be in charge of a particular formation. You could, um, work up a results table and make a dice roll… |
arthur1815 | 04 Apr 2015 8:06 a.m. PST |
You've gone to the heart of the matter, zippyfusenet: it is the characteristics of the formation commander that will largely determine how his troops behave (ie what orders HE will give them) when 'out of command', rather than some arbitrary distance over the ground from army headquarters. A reaction chart cross-referencing situation and formation commander's personality traits may, indeed, be the way forward. |
Supercilius Maximus | 04 Apr 2015 8:30 a.m. PST |
@ arthur1815, Yes, I would agree with the idea of a chart, plus variables, being the most effective way of dealing with this as a general concept across a long period of military history in which miitary hierarchies and institutions "came of age" to a great extent. However, I would submit that there are other factors to be considered in conjunction with yours:- 1) Some form of "national characteristic" – ie how each nation trains its officers. Is personal discretion encouraged or discouraged and whether there are any guidelines for general application if one is "out of command radius" (eg Nelson's general orders to his captains, or Fred the Great's to his generals). 2) The level of command and the impact that command could have on the strategic situation. Eg, a lowly battalion commander in the AWI would have considerably more autonomy (especially in a frontier/under-garrisoned area) than a battalion commander in the Napoleonic period, if only because his command would have a much larger impact on what was typically a much smaller battle in terms of numbers. 3) Leading from 2), the type and size of conflict being fought. The isolated nature of battalion commanders in the FIW-AWI periods would tend to make them responsible for their own actions; hence not acting at all could be far more likely to result in disciplinary action (court-martial) than acting and simply getting it wrong. In a large campaign/war, a battalion commander in charge of an outlying garrison is far more likely to be aware that his position is more strategically nuanced (even if he does not quite know how or why). |
arthur1815 | 04 Apr 2015 9:36 a.m. PST |
Supercilius Maximus, I agree that one would need to create army/period specific charts to reflect the nuances of each nation's forces and the level of action portrayed. The difficulty may be quantifying the influence of these various factors upon the commander's decisions, but the idea of such variables is very appealing. |
vtsaogames | 04 Apr 2015 11:32 a.m. PST |
I am not arguing for command radius, just that one cannot overestimate the lack of initiative in middle ranking officers. This is very strong during the linear warfare period, before the French Revolution. Armies then tended to attack as single units. Frederick at Leuthen was in a single formation in oblique order. Brigades were ad hoc affairs and the main role of the brigadier was to keep his battalions in line and to ensure that his brigade was in formation with the brigades to either flank. Not much room for initiative there aside from perhaps leading one of the battalions should things get desperate. By the end of the Seven Years war battles are starting to break down. Units attack in distinct groups and Broglie breaks his infantry down into 4 divisions which are semi-permanent. This is when the personality of subordinate generals comes into play. But earlier when the whole army is aligned as a single force? So it's not just which army but which period. Part of the Allied problem before 1809 (to pick an arbitrary date) is that they are still in that linear frame of mind to some extent while French officers have been promoted based on shows of initiative – or being related to a certain Corsican. |
ochoin | 04 Apr 2015 3:30 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I take on board the idea that much depends on the army & the time. As this concept would need to be bolted onto workable wargames' rules, I'm thinking a simple table (open to negotiation) that sketches out the possibilities & a D6 roll that gives the specific result. It may well allow the Nap French (in 1805) a 5-6 target roll and the 1812 Russians only a 6 & an 1806 Prussians unable to roll. I'd still like to make out of command units problematic in terms of control. |
Dye4minis | 04 Apr 2015 4:09 p.m. PST |
Command radius is about the most contrived gaming mechanic ever to be imposed upon the historical gamer! The idea that a unit should suddenly stop once it crosses an imaginary boundry has no root in reality. A unit should continue to carry out it's last order received until it either has accomplished the order or something prevents the unit from accomplishing it. In real life, a commander and his staff could not crank out orders every 15 minutes to every sub-unit in his command! So why can we wargame commanders be allowed to and still claim to be gaming "historical"? Ochoin: Using your logic above, it seems reversed to me. Russians, only being able to act when rolling a "6" outside of the magic ring? In reality, they would die in droves trying to accomplish what they were last ordered to do. (Wasm't it at Borodino where a Russian Grenadier Battalion died in formation from artillery fire when they could have been saved by taking a mere few steps backward and be behind the military crest of the hill?) I would suggest doing a mechanic that limits how many orders/limit a higher leader's influence for every game turn. Accounting for time and distance alone will cause delays, not to mention how long it may take all but the best to digest incoming information, make a decision for a course of action, have it written and a courier finding and delivering it to the subordinate…and the process starts again. Time and distance -2 real concepts that affect command and control more than an imaginary radius that never changes in distance, time or account for a leader and his staff's efficiency. Sorry, rant mode off….. |
spontoon | 04 Apr 2015 4:19 p.m. PST |
In the One True Set Of Horse and Musket Rules ( WRF 1685-1845), All Else is Heresy!; a unit may test to charge, etc. if out side the Commnders' command radius. Just adds one point to the calculation. This is often negated by national characteristics for such groups as Irish, Highland, or Gurkha. Here Endeth The Lesson! |
McLaddie | 04 Apr 2015 5:08 p.m. PST |
The question is how commanders actually controlled their forces from the SYW though to the invention of the phone line and radio. It was pretty much the same methods for over three hundred years--or more. A Command radius *might* portray the communication distances between an army or corps commander, but for any lower commands, as Tom Dye says… contrived. |
ochoin | 04 Apr 2015 5:17 p.m. PST |
@ Dye4minis I appreciate what you've written but I didn't make myself entirely clear. In both ELAN (the Nap set I use) & in 'A Glorious War' (my own SYW set), units outside command aren't in a state of utter torpor. If they are advancing, they continue to advance. If attacked, they defend themselves etc. It's the question of responding to new events without orders. An enemy unit moves within charge distance. Do they charge without orders? My understanding is that as a general rule, subordination meant mostly 'no'. I'm seeking a mechanism for the rare-ish subordinate commander who would follow his initiative (& most likely been replaced after the battle was over!). @ McLaddie. A command radius is an artificial contrivance so you can play a game. I'm not sure you've ever understood this concept. |
Supercilius Maximus | 04 Apr 2015 6:16 p.m. PST |
ochoin, I was looking at this from the perspective of detached units that were out of visual contact with a battle (never mind their own command) and trying to decide what – if anything – to do about "all that noise" coming from behind those trees/hills/buildings. |
Dan 055 | 04 Apr 2015 6:54 p.m. PST |
Is everyone actually suggesting that a simple if contrived command radius rule – which purpose is not to represent command at the battalion level, but to punish players who scatter their units – should be replaced with complex rules controlling the movement of each and every unit? |
McLaddie | 04 Apr 2015 8:35 p.m. PST |
@ McLaddie. A command radius is an artificial contrivance so you can play a game. I'm not sure you've ever understood this concept. ochoin: I guessed you'd need to read what I've written in the past. As I've written on many occasions: With wargames and simulations, EVERYTHING about them is artificial. The game mechanics are supposed to 'contrive' to mimic actual command dynamics in some way. In that regard, most all command radius rules completely fail in 18th and 19th Century wargames. [Of course, that term, 'command radius' is applied to a a wide range of very different mechanics for even more varied reasons and scales, from skirmish games to strategy WWII boardgames.] Command radius mechanics were first introduced with Avalon Hill games in the 1960s admittedly for the purpose of keeping players from pushing units all over the place, not because the mechanics somehow portrayed how command/control actually worked or the challenges they created for commanders. As Dan 005 says: …a simple if contrived command radius rule which purpose is not to represent command at the battalion level, but to punish players who scatter their units "Punishing" players in that fashion at any scale has nothing to do with the challenges of command and control. It produces very skewed decisions and play, to say the least. So the question again is, how were combat units controlled during the 18th and 19th centuries? That is the premise behind your question, right?--that there is a relationship between actual command control systems and wargame rules? Know the answer to that question, and you'd know how completely unrelated to actual command most all command control mechanics really are AND the answer to your question for this thread: The core of this post: would it be realistic in especially SYW & Napoleonic armies to offer units outside of command range a possibility of action? That is the issue of 'realism' you speak of, I would imagine. What placed units 'outside of command' had little to do with 'ranges' represented by command radius mechanics, particularly for Divisional and lower commands. But it is usually true of higher commands too in battle. At Bautzen, Oudinot's Corps was miles away from Napoleon, but he was never 'out of command', let alone unable to initiate action because of some supposed distance from the Emperor. Is everyone actually suggesting that a simple if contrived command radius rule which purpose is not to represent command at the battalion level, but to punish players who scatter their units should be replaced with complex rules controlling the movement of each and every unit? Dan 055: What, those are our only two choices? A completely ahistorical mechanic that has nothing to do with command or complex rules? Game designers have been and are more imaginative than that. Military men always followed the rule of "KISS". Any methods for controlling movement and combat of thousands of men on the battlefield had to be simple. I would think that can translate into simple mechanics for wargames portraying those simple methods. |
Dye4minis | 05 Apr 2015 2:20 a.m. PST |
Hi, All. The principles of Command and Control (in real life) remain the same regardless of what period you want to game in or at what level. It is akin to a law of nature in that it demands all of the ingredients if it is to work for you. A "Law of Nature" example that fits: You cannot travel any distance without using some amount of time to get you there. Another may be: You can only shout (and be understood) over a short distance, and then, the direction of the wind may come into play. Command and Control consists of the following 5 elements (for a lack of a better word, I use the word "element" here: 1. The "Commanding Element": Wargamers do this well. He's our Fearless Leader figure, usually also representing his staff. 2. The "Downward Flow of Communication". We gamers get this usually right. The sending of "orders" from the Higher level in the chain of command to a subordinate. (Not many consider sending SITREPS to the subordinate to let them know how other units are doing.) 3. The "Commanded Element". The subordinate command(er). 4. The "Upward Flow of Communications". This is where the subordinate commander (and/or his staff) communicate the situation of his command to the "Commanding Element" 5. "Friction"- This is found at all of the 4 steps above. Factors to be considered: Time Distance, competency of the composer of the communication, competency of the reader of the communication, the chance that the communication never is received by the intendant, courier gets lost/mode of transmission garbled, or worse yet, gets intercepted by the enemy! Most of us really do not want to dig into the weeds to see what happens when we send a message, but we all want to know the results of the communication! If a designer creates a mechanic that models this process that can provide the differing results with just one roll of the dice, then fine! I'm willing to see what he came up with. Is it reasonable? Does it provide believable results? Command radius does not address all of the 5 elements of Command and Control for me. Why? Because there are some things a player can control and many others, he cannot. Each communication sent should never , ever be the same every time! (ie. May take more or less time to complete the transmission; how many orders can one man or staff actutually be acted upon within the time scale of a game turn, etc.) (Akin to the concept that units are made up of indivdual men- no two are alike but in our games , all "average" units will always act the same.) "@ McLaddie. A command radius is an artificial contrivance so you can play a game. I'm not sure you've ever understood this concept." I feel he has more than you give him credit for. The artificial contrivance does not always work and such discussions can explain why to all who have ever put thought to "what is this mechanic attempting to do?" "Does it succeed? Is it believeable?…Sometimes, a good idea gets lost in the description of the rule as written. Is that the fault of the gamer or the rules author? Just trying to help by offering another perspective. Remember, we all seek better rules to have fun with! v/r Tom (the "other" Tom) |
Dye4minis | 05 Apr 2015 2:31 a.m. PST |
Ochoin wrote: If they are advancing, they continue to advance. If attacked, they defend themselves etc. It's the question of responding to new events without orders. An enemy unit moves within charge distance. Do they charge without orders? My understanding is that as a general rule, subordination meant mostly 'no'. I'm seeking a mechanism for the rare-ish subordinate commander who would follow his initiative (& most likely been replaced after the battle was over!)." I essentially agree with your thinking here! I suppose gamers might even send over a loyal detachment of Gendarme over to see that the insubordiante leaders has "an accident"! I would suggest (as a simple mechanic) that whatever the leader in question is rated (say, 1 thru 6), the gamer wishing to "go rogue" must roll UNDER the leader's rating. If he succeeds, hold a "Court of Inquiry" after the game. If he made the game winning move…the Overall Commander will get the credit he gets a metal, promotion or an extra ration of swill! If his action lost the battle….he just earned himself a new necktie made of hemp! (A bullet is worth more than his life is now worth!) Does that get us back on track with your original question? v/r Tom (Not the hero of the Air Cav Tom.) |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 05 Apr 2015 2:41 a.m. PST |
Whilst people continue to centre their debate upon game rules rather than historical practices and events, we`ll always have someone ask how command radii can be made to work in historical games. |
Mute Bystander | 05 Apr 2015 4:24 a.m. PST |
The small end or the large end of the egg? |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 05 Apr 2015 4:29 a.m. PST |
Little-Endian, always ! Next question… |
McLaddie | 05 Apr 2015 7:29 a.m. PST |
Battalion commanders had very little latitude. They could form square if threatened, refuse a flank, or stop/start volley fire. Brigade commanders had a bit more, but only dealing with what was in front of them. Division commanders, depending on the nation could have a broader spectrum of options. For the French, a division could be seen as a small combined-arms army. Corps commanders had objectives. How they achieved them with their corps was their business--within the instructions of the CinC. The reason that battalions and brigades had little decision latitude had to do with how troops were controlled. They either were part of a column advance of a division or a battle line, which was controlled by a directing battalion/brigade. Everyone did the same thing. That battle line could be as long as one wished… no command radius. Command was passed down the line by officers by voice far faster than a courier could ride. Everyone keyed on the directing unit. That's how brigadiers and division commanders 'controlled' their troops. IF a battalion got out of line, its first responsibility was to get back into line… and being out of line is really the only thing that could be considered 'out of command.' Even division commanders would have to maneuver, keying off each other. The distances units were from a divisioinal commander wasn't an issue. Where they were in the battle line was. In most games, even the distances couriers would have to cross from Corps commanders to division commanders is a mere fraction of a game turn. The distances from a commander were never a real concern in the military system used. So, any individual initiative would either be within the proscribed SOP, the pre-determined latitude allowed each level of command, or the commander was making decisions outside his responsibilities… which was an issue on the battlefield and with the consequences after. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 05 Apr 2015 7:47 a.m. PST |
…and Little-Endians always use directing units or regulating battalions ;-) |
balticbattles | 05 Apr 2015 10:12 a.m. PST |
I think that the command radius is meant to reflect much more than just the distance to which a commander can control troops. As a tabletop general I have 100% knowledge of everything going on in the battle. I think the command radius reflects: 1) The commander may not even know the situation that the battalion is in that as a player you want it to react to. Now the battalion commander could send a message, and the commander could assess and reply. But to my knowledge brigade/divisional commaders didn't get paper updates every 10 minutes. And if they did there would be a queue of messagers and replies would be delayed. Sometimes the unit itself might not even be aware of the event you want to repond to. Battlefields are generally much less flat than tables and it doesn't take much of a rise or dip to hide a unit. 2) There is a limit to the distance at which commanders can exert effective control. Generally, the further the distance, the harder to effect control – bearing in mind that the distance is usually covered by other units. Controlling units that you can't see and which have a time delay to communication increases the risk of inappropriate orders. I'm happy with machanisms that make it harder for troops to do what you want the further away they are. If that isn't in the rules, I will deploy my troops for maximum effectiveness – which might make all units spread right across the table, all mixed up. |
Dan 055 | 05 Apr 2015 12:07 p.m. PST |
McLaddie "Punishing" players in that fashion at any scale has nothing to do with the challenges of command and control. I have to disagree, failing to meet the challenges of real life command and control will result in real life punishing you quickly and effectively. Essentially I agree with you. The only reason I defend command radius is due to its simplicity. For the appropriate period (ie horse & musket) and the appropriate scale (ie division to corp) it does a good enough job representing the limited options available to lower level commanders. NONE of these troops should be in the position where they need to operate independantly. If they are then some general has failed to keep his command together. At Bautzen, Oudinot's Corps was miles away from Napoleon, but he was never 'out of command', let alone unable to initiate action because of some supposed distance from the Emperor. But in cases like these, Oudinot would be the source of the command radius, not Napoleon. For command radius to work, each commander capable of making independant decisions must be the center of his troops radius. What, those are our only two choices? Of course not. Once again my concern is simplicity. Command radius works well, in its place, without having to make sure your other rules don't conflict with it. For myself I use a combination of it along with a variant of DBA's pips system. link And highlandbevan brings up another point the mile high general. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 05 Apr 2015 2:26 p.m. PST |
The means of controlling troops in battle (as Bill described it above) was in fact, simplicity itself and units "in command" simply followed their leaders. Distance and radii had nothing to do with it. Regulation: This was, after all the method used which can be traced back to antiquity and troops in phalanx or lines were signalled by music or visual signs (standards and then flags). It was the method of controlling troops until the late-nineteenth century. For it to work for so long it had to be simple. The commanders actually positioned themselves with the leading (regulating) units not in the topographical centre of their commands. This tended to be traditionally on the right, but their positions could be changed, if they needed to be somewhere else and to direct the command elsewhere on the battlefield. Once this is known, you do not need radii or distances units do not mysterious stop, forget their orders, nor do they whimsically decide to march slowly if they are at 600, rather than 599 yards away from their commanders. |
zippyfusenet | 05 Apr 2015 5:24 p.m. PST |
Gentlemen, I've enjoyed the discussion and many good points have been made. I'll agree that the ideal would be for a professional commander to keep his troops in good order and under command, and so should the wargamer. But what about the times, through necessity or through error, when a commander sends his army somewhere that the system of command breaks down? For instance, when a commander orders his army into a general advance on a mile-wide front through woods so thick that a battalion commander can't see the ends of his own unit, as at Shiloh or Chickamauga. Or orders a general advance into a fogbank, as Frederick did at Lobositz, or across a wide grassy meadow that turns out to be fish ponds(!) aa Frederick did at Prague. Then, I think, we want a mechanism to make the general advance break up, with some units struggling forward and others sticking fast, some finding holes and exploiting them while others wait for events. A dice roll works for me. |
McLaddie | 05 Apr 2015 5:37 p.m. PST |
I have to disagree, failing to meet the challenges of real life command and control will result in real life punishing you quickly and effectively. Dan 005 Perhaps I misunderstood you. Of course the goal is to present the 'real life command and control' challenges, with any 'real life' punishment that comes from poor decisions and the enemy within that command system. The Command radius mechanism has nothing to do with how commands were controlled and the Napoleonic communication processes, so any punishment inflicted by the mechanic also has nothing to do with 'real life punishment' reflected within the rules. Military men didn't conclude that a unit, battalion or corps was 'out of command' or that the command system had fallen apart simply because they were too far away, however that is measured. |
McLaddie | 05 Apr 2015 5:39 p.m. PST |
Gentlemen, I've enjoyed the discussion and many good points have been made. I'll agree that the ideal would be for a professional commander to keep his troops in good order and under command, and so should the wargamer.But what about the times, through necessity or through error, when a commander sends his army somewhere that the system of command breaks down? So the question is how terrain and weather or other battlefield events hampered command and then how to represent that. |
zippyfusenet | 05 Apr 2015 6:33 p.m. PST |
So the question is how terrain and weather or other battlefield events hampered command and then how to represent that. Narrowly, that's the question I just raised. More broadly, though… I've understood 'command radius' to mainly represent units being out of their commander's control due to being out of sight. I understand your position is that in real life, out-of-sight is not a problem because the whole division or corps or army is formed in one line and they all move together, each battalion guiding on the battalion on its right. Fair enough. I've just listed a parcel of historical cases where the big linear formation broke down, and a set of historical wargame rules should deal with those cases. But in most of my favorite wargame rule sets, nothing specifically enforces linear formations in the first place. They're very restrictive, and the average wargamer won't stick to them if he has other options. Let's try writing a rule to enforce linear formations: "No unit may move unless it's in contact with another friendly unit on its right." Wait, that's not historical… "Before the game, the player must document an 'order of battle' designating each unit's position in the line of battle from right to left." We won't make the gamer sort the units from right to left in order of their commanders' seniority in the promotion list. That would be historical, but cruel. "No unit may move unless it's in it's designated position in line, in contact with designated units on its right and left." Hm. "No unit may move," seems a little drastic. Should we introduce a dice roll? That's very restrictive, even with a dice roll. A command radius rule actually gives the wargamer more flexibility. more decisions, hence more fun. Whether that's strictly historical fun, or not. What about the battalion that breaks, routs, leaves its designated position in the line? The men run out of breath and hide in a brushy creek bed half a mile back. Can no unit ever fill the break in the line? Should that depend on a dice roll? The routers are hiding, out of sight, out of control. Can they never rally up and come back to the fight? If this is the Seven Years War and they're the Dudelberg Landbattalion (militia), maybe not. But if this is the ACW, routed regiments often came back and fought like demons that same afternoon. Maybe it should depend on a dice roll. Look. I just want to play a game with toy soldiers. For entertainment purposes, I want the game to provide a convincing illusion of verisimilitude. This is not actually the same thing as historical accuracy. But it has to be fun. Command radius works well enough for me. I'd also be willing to try some other game rule mechanism that discourages me from scattering my toy SYW or ACW troops too much across my toy battlefield, and keeps my wargame looking reasonably like a model of linear warfare. But it has to allow me to make meaningful decisions that affect the course and outcome of the game. And it has to be fun. Actually, I have experimented with rules where units in a linear formation get to move for sure and for free, whereas units detached from the main line have to roll a dice, or have their own commander to motivate them. It's not too complicated, it allows meaningful decisions, and it's fun. |
McLaddie | 05 Apr 2015 10:01 p.m. PST |
Narrowly, that's the question I just raised. More broadly, though…I've understood 'command radius' to mainly represent units being out of their commander's control due to being out of sight. I understand your position is that in real life, out-of-sight is not a problem because the whole division or corps or army is formed in one line and they all move together, each battalion guiding on the battalion on its right. T hat isn't the whole story about the control of units 'out of sight', but let's save that. Fair enough. I've just listed a parcel of historical cases where the big linear formation broke down , And such events were something military men of the time had thought of solving because they experienced them. So what were their methods for dealing with those 'breakdowns'? …and a set of historical wargame rules should deal with those cases. But in most of my favorite wargame rule sets, nothing specifically enforces linear formations in the first place. They're very restrictive, and the average wargamer won't stick to them if he has other options. Of course they're 'restrictive'. Those restrictions were the rules followed so thousands of men could maneuver together 'in command' before the the advent of the radio. They are no more 'restrictive' than the patterns every member of a marching band follows at half-time. Let's try writing a rule to enforce linear formations:"No unit may move unless it's in contact with another friendly unit on its right." Wait, that's not historical… Well, yeah, that's right. It isn't historical. When units weren't 'in contact' [depending on what that meant for the military men of the time] what were those units expected to do? stand still? No. There were very specific SOPs for such situations. ONE of the SOPs was to make the primary mission of that 'unconnected unit' to get connected again. The 2/4th Battalion after it routed at Austerlitz is a good example. "Before the game, the player must document an 'order of battle' designating each unit's position in the line of battle from right to left." We won't make the gamer sort the units from right to left in order of their commanders' seniority in the promotion list. That would be historical, but cruel. And tedious and totally unnecessary for portraying 'command control' for a brigadier on up. The order of battle and battle array was important, to the battalions in knowing their place, but that was handled long before a battle. It wasn't a major command issue during battle. "No unit may move unless it's in it's designated position in line, in contact with designated units on its right and left."Hm. "No unit may move," seems a little drastic. Should we introduce a dice roll? I think this 'no unit may move' restriction is unhistorical as well as drastic. The regulating unit told the other units how to move, where to move. Enforcing a negative instead is the problem. That's very restrictive, even with a dice roll. A command radius rule actually gives the wargamer more flexibility. more decisions, hence more fun. Whether that's strictly historical fun, or not. Actually, it doesn't provide more flexibility. Every command radius rule I've seen are more restrictive in both the frontage than the possible historical frontages and number of unts that can be engaged at one time, and isn't linear warfare, but more warband bunching. It encourages, and in some versions, almost demanding that large forces move in tight groups as deep as they are wide--or narrow. Often gamers are 'punished' for attempting historical frontages and tactics for divisions and corps. Whether that is 'more fun' is a matter of personal preference, but the mechanics do lead to the unrealistic crowd control exercises on many game tables. [Of course, gamers want to field all their painted figures too.] What about the battalion that breaks, routs, leaves its designated position in the line? The men run out of breath and hide in a brushy creek bed half a mile back. Can no unit ever fill the break in the line? Should that depend on a dice roll? Again, something faced and dealt with by military men of the time in their command system. There were simple SOPs for such eventualities. The routers are hiding, out of sight, out of control. Can they never rally up and come back to the fight? If this is the Seven Years War and they're the Dudelberg Landbattalion (militia), maybe not. But if this is the ACW, routed regiments often came back and fought like demons that same afternoon. Maybe it should depend on a dice roll. Again, the question is how such things were planned for, trained and handled in battle. Can't move or change events with dice aren't the only ways to handle such events. Look. I just want to play a game with toy soldiers. For entertainment purposes, I want the game to provide a convincing illusion of verisimilitude. This is not actually the same thing as historical accuracy. But it has to be fun. I have no problem with that nor would I want to discourage you in any way. The question here was: would it be realistic in especially SYW & Napoleonic armies to offer units outside of command range a possibility of action? Command radius works well enough for me. I got that. I was simply pointing out that it didn't work well as a representation of how 18th century and 19th century command actually worked or the decisions it generates for wargamers. I'd also be willing to try some other game rule mechanism that discourages me from scattering my toy SYW or ACW troops too much across my toy battlefield, and keeps my wargame looking reasonably like a model of linear warfare. Okay. So how did the real commanders keep their troops from scattering across the real battlefields? That's the question. But it has to allow me to make meaningful decisions that affect the course and outcome of the game. And it has to be fun. Absolutely. So what constitutes 'meaningful decisions'? That does apply to the thread question. Actually, I have experimented with rules where units in a linear formation get to move for sure and for free, whereas units detached from the main line have to roll a dice, or have their own commander to motivate them. It's not too complicated, it allows meaningful decisions, and it's fun. And that represents…? There are lots of ways to create fun game mechanics, but historically the actual command and control systems were pretty uniform. That's the template all these rules are attempting to fit. Right? |
Steve64 | 06 Apr 2015 3:27 a.m. PST |
Consider this real life incident (from the Russo-Japanese war, as late as 1907) A Russian Division on the right flank of the line is ordered to hold a hill overlooking the Japanese lines. Another Russian Division is ordered to attack the Japanese holding another hill on the extreme flank of their line. Both units are beyond visual range of the Russian CIC, once the orders are issued. Keep in mind that its 1907, its 100 years of technological progress since the battle of Eylau, and the weather in Manchuria is not too bad on this day. In real life, the Russian Div on the attack took longer than expected to reach their form up point, so they attacked late, and attacked the wrong hill. For a good part of the afternoon, the 2 Russian Divisions fought each other over control of the wrong hill, whilst the Japanese managed to draw their forces away from that wing … and advance in the wrong direction and eventually find themselves behind the Russian lines. A complete … but stuff like this happens in real battles (maybe more often than we would like to admit). Its worth thinking about how this could possibly ever happen on the wargames table, and how C&C game mechanics could ever cause such an awful SNAFU in miniature, without the players being deliberately silly. |
zippyfusenet | 06 Apr 2015 3:34 a.m. PST |
Actually, it doesn't provide more flexibility. Every command radius rule I've seen are more restrictive in both the frontage than the possible historical frontages and number of unts that can be engaged at one time, and isn't linear warfare, but more warband bunching. It encourages, and in some versions, almost demanding that large forces move in tight groups as deep as they are wide--or narrow. Often gamers are 'punished' for attempting historical frontages and tactics for divisions and corps. Whether that is 'more fun' is a matter of personal preference, but the mechanics do lead to the unrealistic crowd control exercises on many game tables. [Of course, gamers want to field all their painted figures too.] Absolutely agree. Command radius rules have many problems, especially as a model of specifically linear warfare, because allowed depth of formation equals allowed width. Actually, I have experimented with rules where units in a linear formation get to move for sure and for free, whereas units detached from the main line have to roll a dice, or have their own commander to motivate them. It's not too complicated, it allows meaningful decisions, and it's fun. And that represents…? There are lots of ways to create fun game mechanics, but historically the actual command and control systems were pretty uniform. That's the template all these rules are attempting to fit. Right?
That represents the simplicity, reliability and ease of execution of "Forward! General advance!" versus "…and while we do that, you bunch of guys go over to just past that chicken coop over there, face 30 degrees left and jump up and down on your left feet for 10 minutes." Let me put it more directly. Please propose some specific wargame rule mechanics for simulating the problems of command control on the black-powder linear battlefield as you see them. I'll try them out, and make my mind up whether they're practical and fun, and whether I prefer them to other alternatives. At this point, you've challenged me to devise rules that satisfy your demands for the convincing illusion of verisimilitude. I don't think I can win that game. |
zippyfusenet | 06 Apr 2015 3:48 a.m. PST |
I guess we can all dig up historical cases that can break any set of wargame rules. Real life is like that, "Under the most rigorously controlled conditions of pressure, temperature, volume, humidity, and other variables, the organism will do as it damn well pleases." Steve64, I don't *want* my toy soldiers to behave the way that Russian army did in real life. It would be historically accurate, but no fun for either player, since neither the Russian nor the Japanese player would have any meaningful input into the outcome of the game. Nothing to do but watch the little guys go at each other. Reminds me of some computer games that I have disliked. No way to influence events once you've started them. Arguably historical, but no fun. I suppose this would be why so many smart commanders in the linear era avoided fighting big battles if they possibly could. Big battles were messy, painful, scary and no fun. |
Steve64 | 06 Apr 2015 4:41 a.m. PST |
@zippy – totally agree, it would be beyond frustrating to watch, and not much fun to be part of. But there are times when it would be good to watch the opponent have these problems :) I guess the point is that a game could benefit from having very bad consequences for a lack of decent planning & execution. Putting together a great plan, and seeing it unfold should be within reach, and extremely satisfying when it unfolds as planned. Its always a fine line between having a game that is playable vs making it simply too hard to translate player intentions into actions. Nobody wants that. |
Major Bloodnok | 06 Apr 2015 4:43 a.m. PST |
Was Chamberlin in or out of command when he charged down Little Roundtop? Did Law have to roll a die to see if he could disobey orders at Devil's Den? ;>) |
Trajanus | 06 Apr 2015 4:51 a.m. PST |
I'd also be willing to try some other game rule mechanism that discourages me from scattering my toy SYW or ACW troops too much across my toy battlefield, and keeps my wargame looking reasonably like a model of linear warfare. Easy, in fact its already been mentioned and includes Napoleonics and AWI for good measure! Also, it gets mentioned almost every time there's a discussion on Command Radius. REGULATING BRIGADES AND BATTALIONS! Where its a major advance (Division or above) or contains more than one Brigade, just pick one generally the one on your right as you stand behind it and place a general behind the right most battalion/regiment. Then move everything as normal. During the move all brigades and battalions must not advance beyond the front line of the Regulating Brigade and will slow when it slows and speed up to keep in line if they fall behind. At all times the battalions within the brigades will keep the formation and position they started in, relative to each other and brigades will remain a distance approximating to 100yds apart. If your rules don't have a ground scale aim for a fixed percentage of the normal battalion frontage. Exactly the same principal applies within each brigade, with a Regulating battalion and all the rest forming and moving off it. Totally standard procedure and in the drill books for all four periods mentioned. Plus the Romans and Greeks if you want to go back that far! |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 06 Apr 2015 5:48 a.m. PST |
I have had rules for regulating units since about 2004 and these were incorporated in to my Grand Manoeuvre Napoleonic rules in about 2010… There are quite a few points in those rules, but once you know them it`s easy to follow. I have an example of how this works in a game report on my website: link If you want to apply rules like these to grand-tactical level rules, like Trajanus mentions above, simply change the regulating battalion, to a regulating brigade (this was the term used at the time) or just make it the basic game base that the rules state. |
McLaddie | 06 Apr 2015 7:38 a.m. PST |
Its worth thinking about how this could possibly ever happen on the wargames table, and how C&C game mechanics could ever cause such an awful SNAFU in miniature, without the players being deliberately silly. This is really an AI problem as much as anything. How to have commands act contrary to orders for whatever reason, that and perhaps a poor command system like the 1904 Russians. And this is also the thread question: would it be realistic in especially SYW & Napoleonic armies to offer units outside of command range a possibility of action? More AI. What can they do on their own? Of course, by 1900 troops were much more spread out across the front than a century before. |
McLaddie | 06 Apr 2015 8:12 a.m. PST |
That represents the simplicity, reliability and ease of execution of "Forward! General advance!" versus "…and while we do that, you bunch of guys go over to just past that chicken coop over there, face 30 degrees left and jump up and down on your left feet for 10 minutes." Zippy: Yes, simplicity is important. Here the question was what 'realism' to simplify? Let me put it more directly. Please propose some specific wargame rule mechanics for simulating the problems of command control on the black-powder linear battlefield as you see them. I'll try them out, and make my mind up whether they're practical and fun, and whether I prefer them to other alternatives. Fair enough. See below. At this point, you've challenged me to devise rules that satisfy your demands for the convincing illusion of verisimilitude. I don't think I can win that game. No one has to satisfy my 'demands'. If someone likes a picture of Rommel with an eye-patch and a pegleg, fine. Am I demanding something if I point out that Rommel 'really' didn't wear either? I wasn't challenging you to devise rules. I was challenging the historical premise for the examples you gave. i.e. What 'reality' the rules were intended to mimic. One problem with proposing isolated game mechanics for X is that in most cases we are talking about sticking them on existing game systems which have their own integrated historical premises [As well as those for 'simplicity]. It can be like sticking a square peg in a round hole. Awkward. For instance, a game like Shako II or a larger scale Age of Eagles, regulating battalion mechanics can be fairly easy to stick in, while something like General de Brigade, it could be really boring, all battalions moving in lock step…even though that is what they did in battle. Mike's rules mentioned above and Too Fat Lardies Le Sacre Feu have regulating unit mechanisms. I'll post what I am doing with my rules. How well they might 'translate' to whatever rules you are using can be a point of discussion. The bottom line is this: If regulating battalions/brigades is how commanders controlled and communicated with their units, then whatever rules intended to portray C2 would need to have that system as the template, even though any number of different game mechanics could conceivably illustrate the dynamics of that system. |
McLaddie | 06 Apr 2015 10:23 a.m. PST |
One of the issues with 19th Century command is that while a divisional/corps/CinC wouldn't have to or want to get involved at the battalion level, they did. At Salamanca alone, I found at least five instances where Wellington and his 2nd Beresford adjusted battalions in a divisional formation, pulled battalions and brigades from one point to another. So, it makes for some challenges. What I have chosen to do is design a brigade-level game [The brigade is the lowest command formation. The brigade is portrayed by two stand nominal battalions, their overall formation the configuration and 'state' of the brigade. Battalions can only be 'separate' from the internal brigade formation for 3 reasons: if they are separately retreated/routed, assigned a BUA or fortification to defend or as skirmishers. If routed, their sole move is towards it's parent brigade OR the nearest friendly Brigade to attach to. [Which was the general SOP for isolated battalions.] Combat and movement is by brigade, the battalion numbers, formations and condition indicating the state of the brigade. hopefully that provides the visuals, but simplifies the processes in a similar way the actual command system did. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 06 Apr 2015 11:17 p.m. PST |
"…any number of different game mechanics could conceivably illustrate the dynamics of that system." My point is that you do not need to "illustrate" or "represent" it; the actual methods were certainly no more complex than wargames rules have become for command radii and general`s ratings. |
Trajanus | 07 Apr 2015 6:00 a.m. PST |
My point also. Regulation is what it is, I can't see why you need to "represent it". Having said that "Empire" kind of did that! I can't remember which of their 'Orders' it was – may have been more than one – but units had to maintain "relative position" to one another at all times. So in effect they were applying Regulation without calling it by name or explaining what it was! |
McLaddie | 07 Apr 2015 6:38 a.m. PST |
My point is that you do not need to "illustrate" or "represent" it; the actual methods were certainly no more complex than wargames rules have become for command radii and general`s ratings. Mike and Trajanus: I agree that the actual methods were simple and don't have to be any more complex than command radii. Still, you have to represent, model, mimic them artificially with miniatures on a table with game rules, and depending on the scale and lots of other factors, there could be any number of ways to do that effectively. The dynamic was 'follow the leader', where the regulating unit moved in a particular formation, the rest followed. That's how the commander 'controlled' his brigade or division. Being 'out of command' was being disconnected from the group. And a very long line could be controlled this way with a very quick response time. |
Allan F Mountford | 07 Apr 2015 7:29 a.m. PST |
What I have chosen to do is design a brigade-level game Keep us posted on developments, Bill. Allan |
Pages: 1 2
|