"Command Points (Pips)" Topic

Writing in Battlegames magazine, David CR Brown said:

At the high command level, there is something fundamentally flawed about a command system that permits a player to vary or completely alter his entire battlefield objectives or command intentions, literally from turn to turn. With a PIP system, you can do anything you like with your units; as long as you have the command points, there's no requirement for a plan or orders.

Do you agree?

The command pips is just a current tool to allow a game to go quickly instead of checking command radusesand situation modifiers which would need to be calculated in a simulation rather than a game.

Drawing and playing cars for available actions and order of movement is a common command action variant as well.

Arguments can be made for all versions and I have designed projects using all of them and a few others as well.

If you want an extremely realistic system have a go at George Jeffries "Variable Length Bound" system.

@greenknight4 – where could i find out about that system? Never heard of it before.

I like command points or pips as a method for randomly managing the amount of stuff the commander can get done in a given turn, before the opponent has their chance. I don't like players knowing ahead of time how much stuff they can get done ahead of time.

TMP discussion of VLB here – TMP link

Doug

Deployment determines objectives and command intentions. The "pips" only randomize your ability to carry that plan out.

So I … Disagree

Pips were a good way of showing how it became more difficult to perform once an army lost cohesion and command became fragmented.

It is an abstract mechanic and once battle starts there are not enough pips to do everything that the all seeing gamer might want to do.

Saga uses the pip system. A very enjoyable game.

I like pips for the reasons mentioned above. In general, I like systems that don't let you do everything you want to do when you want to do it.

I disagree, too. The PIP system, if anything, is badly explained. It is more akin to the idea that the commander (and his staff) may require more or less time to perform a certain task for this turn. The more pips the easier it was to accomplish- the less pips generated, the harder it was.

When the wife asks you to run out and get a gallon of milk, will it always take you exactly the same amount of time? Think about red lights; fast line at the store verses a long/slow line; did you need to get get gas on the way home, etc? So as you can see, the same task (getting milk) can take a variable amount of time. The pip system replicates this fact of reality in a very easy way.

That link was interesting. It was also a bit sad by the number of members no longer here.

Pips are used to represent the effect of all the little things that get in the way of the commander accomplishing his goals per turn and are an easy way of representing "friction".

A player that "alters his entire battlefield objectives" should be hindered by a DIFFERENT rule, one that requires orders to units, and an objective for the player and some mechanism for changing those orders.

The pips simply determine how quick and easy any changes take place.

When the wife asks you to run out and get a gallon of milk, will it always take you exactly the same amount of time? Think about red lights; fast line at the store verses a long/slow line; did you need to get get gas on the way home, etc? So as you can see, the same task (getting milk) can take a variable amount of time. The pip system replicates this fact of reality in a very easy way.

While I enjoy pip systems, it doesn't replicate any facts found in reality, particularly 'variable' time. When your wife asks you to run out and get a gallon of milk, you don't know it's going to take you two pips worth of something to do it. Do yoou tell your wife, Sorry, while I have a half an hour to go to the store two blocks away, I know it will take me two hours [because of too few pips rolled], so I'll do something else instead?

The fundamental flaw with the pip system is that the player, unlike a commander, knows exactly what he can and can't do in the next turn/20 minutes or whatever and plans around that… Play can become dominated by what pips are available, players strategizing around that. Play can become very opportunistic.It places the variable events BEFORE the orders instead of when they actually occurred and messed up plans, AFTER orders were issued and carried out.

Even mechanics that hide how many 'pips' or command points you have, the approach for the player is to create a game strategy that allows him to use them most effectively… before the fact.

In reality, the commander made his plans and issued his orders without knowing which would be delayed or fail to be carried out. Issuing orders required very little time after the initial battle plan was made and orders were sent. The CinC rarely issued orders [pips], let alone every single half hour [or whatever time division] to all his troops.

Napoleon, at his greatest victories, Austerlitz and Jena, found him doing very little in the way of issuing orders, perhaps one or two in a four hour time span. Most of the time he was riding around the battlefield [Austerlitz] or kicking a Prussian drum around. [Jena]

The idea is to have players thinking about planning and issue orders etc. in the same ways as the original commanders. Pip systems don't do that as enjoyable as the game mechanic may be.

So, yes, I agree with David Brown on this.

As Clausewitz observed, in war everything is simple, but doing simple things is extremely difficult. PIPs are a simple way of modelling this by preventing the player doing everything they want in a turn. A perfect simulation of command? Probably not. Good enough? Yes.

Agreed.

In one game I know of, each turn represents a volley or two of musket fire. In other words about 40 seconds. Let's say a minute to be generous.

The army commander gets to issue several orders each turn (regulated by a mechanism similar to pips) which can be actioned immediately by any unit within a command radius of 800 yards or so.

There are regular posts on blogs and forums about how realistic a game this is.

As Rudy suggests Pips are a "game" contrivance not a simulation of anything. If there was any evidence that army commanders only brought enough sheets of paper for a limited number of orders per battle…or couldn't find anyone to carry them to the field I could buy an arguement for Pips. Using the mechanic to give one side more orders per battle than another just doesn't seem fair…if the contest is between my strategy and yours.

Is it possible we are over-thinking this:)

The fundamental flaw with the pip system is that the player, unlike a commander, knows exactly what he can and can't do in the next turn/20 minutes or whatever and plans around that…

That's one version of them. Not all pip or command point systems allow the player to know in advance how many pips he will have, or they might run out suddenly, perhaps in the midst of him doing something important and needing to do more. There are a number of games that work that way. They are just an alternative means of randomizing an "opportunity fire" or "reaction" or "interrupt action" or whatever. Most games nowadays have some sort of way to catch the moving player off guard and let his opponent butt-in and do something unexpected.

When your wife asks you to run out and get a gallon of milk, you don't know it's going to take you two pips worth of something to do it. Do yoou tell your wife, Sorry, while I have a half an hour to go to the store two blocks away, I know it will take me two hours [because of too few pips rolled], so I'll do something else instead?

I can certainly think of all kinds of pip-like issues. For example: the store is only two blocks away and I have half an hour but… Damn I got a flat tire in the parking lot of the store. Or…. Damn they're out of the special sort of vanilla-flavored almond milk that she wants and she won't be satisfied with anything else so now I have to go to the other store in the next town… Or… Damn I got a phone call whilst in the milk aisle and the wife just remembered that we need a new shower nozzle also, so will I please pop down to the hardware store on the other side of town and try to squeeze that all in to the original half hour errand?

Some days everything is difficult and it feels as if you're always losing control of even the most simple tasks. I've never commanded in a battle, but from what I've read of the classics on the subject, commanders got used to the reality that they could only exercise so much control over time and events, and the rest was adapting and improvising.

In reality, the commander made his plans and issued his orders without knowing which would be delayed or fail to be carried out. Issuing orders required very little time after the initial battle plan was made and orders were sent. The CinC rarely issued orders [pips], let alone every single half hour [or whatever time division] to all his troops.

That's not a problem unique to pip systems. That's a problem inherent in any game that has Game-Turns, which is nearly every game in existence. Games break up time into artificial segments, so that's how players play the game: in artificial segments.

I've seen people try to address that with things like Variable Length Bounds, or "persistent orders" and whatnot, but I've never seen any successful games that really got away from the fact that time is divided into fixed artificial decision points, except maybe in a few small skirmish games like Conliffe's "Crossfire."

While I enjoy pip systems, it doesn't replicate any facts found in reality, particularly 'variable' time.

I'm not too concerned that any particular game mechanic has to replicate facts found in reality. If that were my main criterion then I wouldn't play many games. I can't think of many processes in ANY game that replicate things found in reality. There are too many differences between the goals of a decent game and the reality of a historical battle. The game, for example, needs to be at least two hours and no more than three hours, whereas the battle is going to take as much time as it's going to take. The game needs to ensure that all players participate and have fun, whereas the battle doesn't care if some participants do nothing all day, and unlike gamers they'll probably be very glad they weren't involved in the battle! And on and on like that.

I don't worry overmuch that the specific things I do in a game aren't mimics of the things that soldiers did in a battle. There are a thousand good reasons why that is so.

As above, if you really want to simulate battlefield command, it may well not produce a very satisfying game.

1. write orders for the intial deployment
2. battle starts. Sit around a bit. Drink some wine. Read reports. Deal with various tedious requests for support from whingeing subordinates. Peer into the smoke. Ride around on your horse a bit avoiding cannonballs, then remember you have to go back and read those reports.
3. at some point, having read enough reports, have a think about when and where to commit your reserve. If you are lucky, you may get to do this twice.
4. read more reports, at some point declare 'by god we've got them' and deploy your pursuit force (you remembered to designate one of those at point 1 didn't you) or 'by god, all is lost' and deploy your rearguard (see above).

Err, and thats it. Three decisions, maybe four.

Von Moltke was of the opinion that by the late nineteenth armies were so huge and dispersed that even that level of control wasn't possible and all you could actually do was deploy your troops and then wait and see what happened. Given the unruliness of many commanders of that era, that may well have been a very realistic approach, but probably not a brilliant game. Pity poor Benedeck at Koeniggratz who discovered his right wing has decided to advance all by itself….

Personally I'd rather give Von Moltke and Benedeck some PIPS and see which units they can get shifting within their command radius.

At least it gives them something to do, as well as roll some combat dice.

Shako does a decent job of simulating the sequence above, although it gives the illusion you have more than three decision to make because you push the units and throw combat dice. Sadly my group don't like written orders, not even lines on a map.

As Clausewitz observed, in war everything is simple, but doing simple things is extremely difficult. PIPs are a simple way of modelling this by preventing the player doing everything they want in a turn. A perfect simulation of command? Probably not. Good enough? Yes.

The translation is "when things are difficult = you can't do everything you want within X amount of time."

Martin:
That wasn't Clausewitz's point with saying that--he was talking about making plans simple and that simple things in war can be difficult to accomplish. He wasn't talking about how much time it would take to do either.

My point is when the commander during battle learns that he can't do everything he wants: Before or after he gives the orders, before or after he commits? He doesn't start a round of issuing orders by noting he only has time to issue two orders instead of four, so considers who he really needs to send orders to. That command process in battle had never been a constant rain of orders to all commands every turn/hour/time period, where the subordinate waffles when he doesn't get his regular fix of orders.

That isn't 'good enough' in my books, not in what it claims to portray of pre-radio command processes.

The only instance where I've read of this kind of 'gosh, I don't have time to issue all the orders I want, or get all the things done I want' was the Austrian Commander the night before Wagram. Archduke Charles wanted to change his battle plans late in the evening, but knew there wasn't enough time to get the changes written and out to all his commanders, etc. so he didn't attempt it. That was an 'all or nothing' situation where, from experience, he know how long it would take to get the orders out.

He doesn't demonstrate that kind of thinking the next day during the battle.

I can certainly think of all kinds of pip-like issues. For example: the store is only two blocks away and I have half an hour but… Damn I got a flat tire in the parking lot of the store. Or…. Damn they're out of the special sort of vanilla-flavored almond milk that she wants and she won't be satisfied with anything else so now I have to go to the other store in the next town… Or… Damn I got a phone call whilst in the milk aisle and the wife just remembered that we need a new shower nozzle also, so will I please pop down to the hardware store on the other side of town and try to squeeze that all in to the original half hour errand?

Garth:
Your right about there being all sorts of Pips mechanics out there, so making a generalization about them all isn't possible.

However… your example above misses my point about pips:

If you go to the store and
You get a flat tire
The store is out of almond milk
You get a phone call

Those are all complications to running the errand to the store that can require far more time than planned.

The point is the poor schmuck on the errand doesn't know he will run into those compications until AFTER he has committed to going to the store… and wouldn't face them at all unless he'd already committed to that action.

Pip command mechanics basically say: "Well, if you go to the store now you will have a flat, there won't be almond milk and you'll be asked to do something else too. Do you still want to go?…Oops, nope, because of all those complications you can't go… not enough pips to covers all those complications…unless you want to give up the pips covering dinner and Monday Nigh Football."

Von Moltke was of the opinion that by the late nineteenth armies were so huge and dispersed that even that level of control wasn't possible and all you could actually do was deploy your troops and then wait and see what happened.

Martin:
That is basically what commanders did during the Napoleonic and ACW. You issue your orders and see what happens. Your only decisions are when and where to commit the reserves…
or call a general advance or retreat.

The Finnish game company Upgames created a board game of Waterloo that can be played in 15-20 minutes because that is the level of decision-making for the players.

YouTube link

I don't think written orders are the only alternative to pips. [I don't like written orders either] Your 4 point assessment of the process is pretty much true for games with written orders.

The question is how to create mechanics that have players commit to decisions for an army and THEN find out where the wheels come off… rather than before they start the car.

That is the basic dynamic in battlefield command. I rarely read of commanders saying that I personally didn't have enough time to issue orders… They do say things happen they can't influence because of time and distance…they don't know about the events or they are so far away they can't influence them soon enough. But even there, pip mechanics seriously skew that relationship.

But I generally like pip mechanics. They provide interesting game challenges and they certainly do give players a lot to do. I just don't see that they portray what folks say they do in any meaningful way.

Wally Simon constantly tinkered with various unit activation methods for the phasing player as well as interruption methods for the non-phasing player. Some of them were quite clever. Some, um, well, not as much, but all were efforts to (as he put it) "produce a game which keeps all players continually busy and interested in what's going on."

As for pips, here's Wally's effort to "fix" the pip system. This comes from his More Secrets of Wargame Design Volume 2. It's one of his shorter articles in the series.

(Full Disclosure: I selected and edited all five volumes of his Secrets of Wargame Design series, which is still in print and available from On Military Matters [US] and Caliver Books [UK].)

---

Pip, Pip, Hooray! An Alternative to Pip Systems Using Cards

One might suppose that I only moan and gripe about the pip-system in DBM. Such is not the case. I also complain, laugh at, and deride the thing. A bloody demanding task, too!

Every once in a while, I propose a better way. Here's one such beastie that uses an ordinary deck of playing cards.

One side uses the red cards and the other side uses the black cards.

Instead of rolling pips, draw a card -- that color indicates the player to move and the number has the equivalent number of pips to move. However, this is subject to one limitation: no command may be allocated more than six pips in a single draw.

Face cards and the Joker are special.

Jack or Queen: One Ally or Sub-General may move all elements in the command for one move. This includes bringing on flank marches. If the side has no Ally or Sub Generals, the card is useless.

King: The CinC may move all elements in his command one move.

Ace: All elements on that side may make one move.

Joker: The last side to move selects one element, moves it, and then resolves combat for that action. Locked units from a previous move are unaffected unless a unit is moved into the combat. The other player moves a single element and resolves combat. This continues until both sides have moved 10 elements, or one side ends the cycle by not moving.

Additional Game Imbalance Prevention Rule

No side may have more consecutive moves than the number of commands on its side. This will eliminate the I-Go/U-Go routine and perhaps make a more dynamic field.

C'est la guerre! Or as the Aussie's cheer: "Say lager!"

----

Personally, I find movement to be the key of all wargaming. If you can't move, for whatever mechanic reason, then you don't have a 3-hour game, you have a 3-hour staring contest. Some systems we game include pip systems, others don't. Whatever the system, the movement mechanic needs to allow players to actually move and do something with all, or at least close to all, of your force every turn.

Of course, that's my preference, and I'm sure others prefer the uncertainty of haphazard movement mechanics that may force units not to move, but when I only have x amount of time to game, I prefer not to spend half of it with nothing to do. :)

I like them just fine. Nothing flawed about them. Wargamers have a pretty low view of what a commander can and can't do. I suspect armies are more flexible than we give them credit for.

Your right about there being all sorts of Pips mechanics out there, so making a generalization about them all isn't possible. However… your example above misses my point about pips:

the poor schmuck on the errand doesn't know he will run into those compications until AFTER he has committed to going to the store…

Pip command mechanics basically say: "Well, if you go to the store now you will have a flat, there won't be almond milk and you'll be asked to do something else too. Do you still want to go?…Oops, nope, because of all those complications you can't go… not enough pips to covers all those complications…unless you want to give up the pips covering dinner and Monday Nigh Football."

No, I did understand the point you were trying to make. But your point is a generalization and as such, is not correct. Not all pip systems work that way. Many of them, whether with pips or cards or command dice or whatever, are based on some unknown quantity of actions or time that the player can't predict in advance.

If you start moving stuff and then your pips suddenly expire and I get to interrupt or opportunity fire, or whatever, before you've finished what you hoped to accomplish, then the system has indeed tried to represent a commander's lack of knowledge and control.

Personally I don't think pips or command dice is the issue and the original quote from David Brown is missing the larger point. The issue is not what game mechanism you come up with to artificially represent a limited amount of control in a turn… The issue is that you've got turns in the first place. You've already subdivided the game into artificial and arbitrary segments that don't exist in reality, so at that point it hardly matters what command mechanism you slap onto it because nothing you do is going to mimic something that exists in reality, because that sort of artificial subdivision of time doesn't exist in reality.

No pips.

This is a favorite topic of mine. I like the Beer and Pretzels Skirmish (BAPS) command point system. The leaders have anywhere from 0 to 3 permanent pre-set points but roll a d4 each turn for their total. Leaders command a fireteam so frequently you end up with more guys than order points. The guys that don't receive orders roll on a chart and sometimes get lucky and sometimes don't.

To really mix things up, I like to throw in the card activation from TFL's IABSM set. A card in the pot for each fireteam plus the turn cards.

Combined this gives you an uncertain command point supply plus a randomness to who goes next. Between the two, it makes for a nice yet simple Fog Of War effect.

No, I did understand the point you were trying to make. But your point is a generalization and as such, is not correct. Not all pip systems work that way. Many of them, whether with pips or cards or command dice or whatever, are based on some unknown quantity of actions or time that the player can't predict in advance.

Garth:
Okay, my point does generalize about command pip systems. As long as the dynamic is about committing to decisions and THEN finding out what does or doesn't actually happen, I have no problem with a system. There are lots of ways to represent that dynamic, and pips can be one mechanism, I am sure.

If you start moving stuff and then your pips suddenly expire and I get to interrupt or opportunity fire, or whatever, before you've finished what you hoped to accomplish, then the system has indeed tried to represent a commander's lack of knowledge and control.

We're talking about command systems, so I am not sure that the opposing player getting to interrupt has anything to do with the issue. Having your command pips suddenly expire represents what? Do you have some example of that happening to a commander. [ Not pips, but what they represent, a commander suddenly unable to issue orders or get anthing else to move in his army as some point? ] I have read several places where commanders feel pressed for TIME, getting things done as soon as possible, but not that dynamic. For instance, Kutusov and others at Austerlitz had a grand SNAFU at the beginning of the battle, a big traffic jam. He was working hard to get it untangled so the different columns could get moving on schedule… but that doesn't seem to be the same thing.

Personally I don't think pips or command dice is the issue and the original quote from David Brown is missing the larger point. The issue is not what game mechanism you come up with to artificially represent a limited amount of control in a turn… The issue is that you've got turns in the first place. You've already subdivided the game into artificial and arbitrary segments that don't exist in reality, so at that point it hardly matters what command mechanism you slap onto it because nothing you do is going to mimic something that exists in reality, because that sort of artificial subdivision of time doesn't exist in reality.

"Nothing you do is going to mimic something that exists in reality." Well, I don't agree with that. Every game and simulation ever created [or will be created] had to have 'turns'. That is, time had to be monitored by dividing it into discrete packets whether minutes or 'turns'.

And in reality, you, I and everyone does that dividing things up into discrete packets of time and every single method for dividing up time, in a wargame or in reality is arbitrary AND artificial. That means a game turn, a set time to start the battle, calculating how long it takes to march from one place to another, a second, a year, the time to start a meeting or what to measure with atomic clocks. All are abitrary choices in counting the passage of time…that is, turns.

If what you say was true, "because that sort of artificial subdivision of time doesn't exist in reality", then no simulation, from research to training would work… and no one would have clocks on our cell phones or know what to do first, second and….

In wargame design, how the passage of time is measured, both representationally and for the sequence of game processes, is critial and certainly has a lot of issues, but you can't get away from it, and you can't represent reality at all without dividing up time artifically and in arbitrary fashion.

Great discussion! One must also remember that the Big Man himself only makes the decisions based upon what he knows. Once his mind is made up (which in and of itself) could take a lot of time. But once made up, he has to communicate his wishes to his staff for dissemination. Even to this day, not every commander is blessed with a smart and efficient staff! This results in even more time before the Commander's wishes begin to leave the HQ element. Add into this time and distance to the affected subordinate units and the process starts all over again, but at a lower level. Again, not everyone has been / is blessed with efficient staffs. I suggest that that as one gets closer to the bottom of the chain of command, the friction of actions underway find the situation even more clouded and difficult to execute new orders. The closer to combat a command is the more susceptible for critical staff members to become casualties or sent off to replace command of sub units increases. Any game that does not try to account for the time and distance friction events has missed the boat!

The Pip system provides the end results at a certain level. It does not seem to explain "why" this time having ordered movement/etc. cannot reach out to as many units as the previous turn, but rather, this block of time does not permit (restricts) such ability. Simple and elegant but most need to be told "why"! They miss the point.

If you are playing at a certain command level, as the commander, you should have to deal with the problems faced at that level. Does one actually think that the answers to "why something cannot be done" is always at the commander's fingertips? No- Only that he needs to somehow regain control/iniative. That is where you, the commander actor, faces the challenge. For many, they like to think they are acting in that role when in reality, they have little or no knowledge what happens at the level being played.

Like i said, a good discussion. Without such, how can we ever get beyond the "Roll a 6 and he's dead, Jim" type of games?

If what you say was true, "because that sort of artificial subdivision of time doesn't exist in reality", then no simulation, from research to training would work…

You were the one who first brought that up as an objection against pip systems. I was only responding to the criteria that you had first laid out. Your exact words were:

"…it doesn't replicate any facts found in reality, particularly 'variable' time…. The idea is to have players thinking about planning and issue orders etc. in the same ways as the original commanders. Pip systems don't do that… So, yes, I agree with David Brown on this."

Now it seems that you want to have it both ways. You complain that a particular game mechanic is flawed because it doesn't literally replicate reality, and then a few hours later you say that literally replicating reality doesn't matter, because after all, if we got too literal about stuff like this, we couldn't have simulations at all.

Not to mention that "representing reality" seems to be a totally subjective criterion in any event. If something represents reality to a player then are you really going to persuade him that he's got it all wrong, and it doesn't represent reality to him after all?

Now it seems that you want to have it both ways. You complain that a particular game mechanic is flawed because it doesn't literally replicate reality, and then a few hours later you say that literally replicating reality doesn't matter, because after all, if we got too literal about stuff like this, we couldn't have simulations at all.

Garth:
I don't remember using the word 'literal'. I said 'any facts', not all facts. It does have to do with time. Above, Dye4 gives a detailed progression of orders being issued and delivered. You can decide how long that could take and how you might divide up time within a wargame to represent it, abstract it or detail it to your heart's content… but you will always have the decisions made, orders issued first, and then the consequences rather than the other way around.

Not to mention that "representing reality" seems to be a totally subjective criterion in any event.

If it is totally subjective, then we aren't talking about reality [i.e. a common experience of events or any reality outside of the individual], but simply your personal criterion and mine. Any number of wargamers view history and wargame design that way. That's fine, but the only discussion possible is "I like this" and "You like that" because all criterion is 'totally' personal and subjective. While likes are of central importance in a hobby, I see game design and history more than just what I happen to like.

However, your and my subjective interpretations of history and reality are based on something--what's being interpreted. No one is going to seriously argue for their interpretation that Lincoln served a third term and died at the age of 91 because of some totally subjective criterion.

The question of command points as representative of the way a command system works and the challenges presented a 19th Century commander has to be based on something historical.

If something represents reality to a player then are you really going to persuade him that he's got it all wrong, and it doesn't represent reality to him after all?

No, but I'm going to ask him what connection he sees between reality and his representation…in this case game mechanics. Game mechanics offer the player very specfic and circumscribed experiences… So, mechanically, a pip command mechanic basically works one way and that supposedly matches something specific in history and the dynamics of command.

Right? So, I would imagine the only thing I might be able to persuade anyone about is what the mechanic does and doesn't do for the gamer in play visa vie history. That's a fairly concrete proposition. Depending on the actual pip system, it offers specific options and a process of decisions and consequences. So does a real command system. A wargame and the real command system will never match perfectly,, but only at those few points purposely chosen by the designer… or they don't match… even if the process makes for a fun game.

As I believe Martin and Dye4 have mentioned, there are a number of different command points/'pip' systems, so perhaps we should speak of specific game mechanics, even with the generalist nature of the Thread question.

"The Finnish game company Upgames created a board game of Waterloo that can be played in 15-20 minutes because that is the level of decision-making for the players.

I don't think written orders are the only alternative to pips. [I don't like written orders either] Your 4 point assessment of the process is pretty much true for games with written orders. "

I've played W1815 – a very interesting game and one I pondered about trying to make more generic, but the card deck is so tailored to Waterloo it is hard to think how to make it into a more general game mechanism.

I do understand the points you make about the disconnect between PIPs and what army commanders actually do, apart from the most general abstraction of 'not everything happens how you want it to'.

One PIP based system which does a good job of simulating Army command is Phil Sabins 'Lost Battles', which I extended into the eighteenth century and it seems to work for that too. The PIPs are effectively a measure of command cohesion and are generated by both the commanders but also the number and quality of units in the Army. Better armies can do more 'stuff', in particular, they can do more imaginative deployments, have a higher tempo of operations etc. but the commander still needs to keep the aim in mind, as once committed, units are very inflexible.

You are probably best looking at Lost Battles (or its earlier and much cheaper incarnations as Strategos), but the vague meanderings of my WSS extension might make some sense.

'Marlborough Light' on my blog.

link

Yes.

Perhaps you should roll for command pips, but have to attain a very high number, over time (a number of turns), in order to make a change to one's orders.

One thing the DBA Pip system does well is represent the loss of control of the army commander.

Turn 1 you can use 1 pip to group move your entire army. Turn 3 you need maybe 2 or 3 pips. One for group A, one for group B one for single unit C. By turn 4 or 5 after recoils, fleeing, and losses your army is scattered and it's hard to get anything done.

Pips also have another benefit for a game designed for tournaments: it shortens the game turn. It limits how many units can move so shortens the cycle.

Might & Reason has an interesting variation on this. A commander needs to roll a 7+ to activate. Each commander gets 2 dice to do so. But the overall commander gets a number of extra dice each turn. He can give these dice to commanders. They don't add them to their two, they roll more dice and choose the 2 they want.

The trick is a turn has multiple move/shoot phases and you don't know how long a turn will last. So those 11 command dice might have to be enough for 1 round of activations, or 4 rounds.

Extra Crispy:

The M&R system sounds like a variation of the Warmaster command process.

Martin:
Yes, the W1815 game is certainly an interesting take on the battle and deeper than it looks. Yes, I have "Lost Battles" as part of his book of that name. It is a great example of the wide range of ways PIPs can be used. I'm interested in how you've used Phil's mechanic. I'll take a look at your 'Marlborough Light'.

While the OP's quote focuses on PIPs I think we're forgetting about the quote's focus: C3 flexibility or lack thereof in battle.

The quote seems to advocate for more restrictive C3 rules. You order a unit to go do something and off it goes. Changing that order is supposed to take some amount of time and effort based on commander skill, troop quality, and communications technology. I would add that situational awareness should probably play a role too.

I agree that a pure DBx-style PIPs system does NOT reflect that particular aspect of battlefield C3. But that's not the same thing as evaluating the value of C3 systems in gaming.

I'm not certain gamers really enjoy highly restrictive or realistic C3 systems in games. That would be a very interesting but very different discussion too!

To me, pips are more about simulating which subcommanders are doing their jobs, who ran into minor obstacles and the aggression level of lower-level officers. I don't see them as a measure of how much time there is to write orders, for the main orders have already been issued.
For example:
The right flank commander knows he is supposed to take the hills, because I told him that's his objective and he wrote them down in his little lead notebook the night before. The center commander is to press forward and pin the French while the left is to probe into the villages to see how strongly they are held.
The right flank commander rolls and gets many pips. He's confident and fairly aggressive, so his troops move out on time and in good order, pressing the attack. (Good boy!)
The center commander rolls and only gets one pip. He's somewhat of a coward and is loathe to move from his comfy defensive position, but starts a unit forward to make sure the going won't be too tough and doesn't want to completely disobey my orders.
The left flank gets a few pips. This general starts to probe forward, but notices the center has not moved like it was supposed to, so holds back.
The pips are measuring the effectiveness of my lower-level commanders and unforeseen obstacles -- whether it be a muddy ditch they cannot cross or orders to battalion commanders that got bungled.
I suppose you could create a system that explains every delay and personality quirk of lower-level generals, but it's a lot quicker to roll a die and say "you get to move three units on the right" than worry about whether the fourth unit is confused, delayed by a deep ditch or led by a man that doesn't want to risk his battalion in combat.
So to address the original question, if you accept the fact that pips are representing effectiveness of lower level commanders implementing your plan, adding in some basic objectives (take the hills to your front) that should probably be hard to change mid battle should result in a decent representation of battlefield friction.
But my right flank commander should probably not be allowed to move toward the hills, then suddenly shift to attacking a small village on his left, then take off after an exposed artillery park then support a cavalry attack in a field before returning to attacking the hills. His orders were to attack the hills and likely he would have little local knowledge of the need for his troops elsewhere -- or an understanding of targets of opportunity through the noise and smoke of battle.
If you use general objectives for your lower commands, the pips become more of a staggered movement mechanism than a command mechanism, I suppose.

This has nothing to do with command points or otherwise. The vast majority of wargames allow you change overall orders on a whim.
That's regardless of whether it's a "light" game like Flames of War or a "realistic" one like Chain of Command.

The exception would be a game like Spearhead where you have to write it down.

C3 rules in games tend to be about preventing units from doing things, not preventing them from certain KINDS of things.

To answer esteemed Editor's original question

Yes I believe in restricting ability to move. In general it replaces written orders, but I can see in really large games that it might help to have Corps level orders/objectives that are harder to change. The Corps commander might then be restricted by pips to meet those objectives

I have recently got back into wargaming and am blessed with a good group of gamers locally. I can clearly see people who believe that they should be able to do what they want, otherwise what is the point of being the general ? Their greatest frustration is when the opponent gets several turns while they basically sit out

There are also people who find it hard to grasp the concept that an abstract mechanism such as pips might be a better way to model something than adding a lot of detailed rules. For instance rules that allow orders to be carried to units to ADCs but the rules concerning the progress of the ADCs get more and more complex. Then you realize the commander couldn't have issued the order without a scouting report of the situation which also takes time to arrive.

So I have come to the conclusion that "fun" in wargames is just as important as an accurate simulation of events.

There are reasons that people dislike DBA, but I find that the short games are very intense, and deciding how to make best use of the pips is one of the things that does that. I can see that not knowing in advance what you can do seems more accurate, but I really enjoy the challenge of managing resources

There are different command and control mechanisms other than pips that are equally if not more effective – I wanted to list some that I know about (in no particular order) – would be interested to see more

• simple DBA pips (DBA is exceptionally well balanced with 12 units)
• card based activation (several rules)
• Roll for each unit – failure indicates end of turn (Warmaster, Lion Rampant and others) – solves issues of varying size of forces and can't predict what you are going to roll
• Drawing dice (Sword and Spear) that may or may not activate a unit – can't predict order or what forces can move, but can prioritize units. I haven't played this yet but it looks good
• Command dice giving variable numbers of actions (Chain of Command) Great system, very well tuned for small unit action. It also adds variable turn lengths
• Command dice that can trade between buffs and activation (SAGA) This system hides the fact that you are restricting the actions you can take by introducing tradeoffs (buffs to add damage rolls etc.) – people who don't like restrictions like this

Thanks

John

No pips. Just something else to keep track of.

Yes, they are fundamentally flawed – but sometimes they are still a good option.

The two major flaws in pip systems *usually* are 1), as noted above, they not only allow, but force a player to focus on what he wants to do … as opposed to really dealing with the broader spectrum of ongoing events; and 2) they do not allow for, and fundamentally limit, the ability of players to over-commit themselves.

It should be easy to set large forces in motion – it only took a few orders after all – BUT once committed you have lost your flexibility. Pip systems, by forcing you to focus your attention, take away both the opportunity to make grand maneuvers and the temptation to make colossal mistakes. On the other hand, once committed, commanders would/should be forced to deal with all manner of events in anything but the manner they wish – but the pip system allows you to cherry-pick what you want to focus on.

Some systems try to get around these problems in various ways, but the most common type of pip system, the "global" pip system featuring a pool of points of some sort you use as you wish, make them a gamist focus of play. A more effective mechanism might feature a separate grand-tactical (formation orders) pip system operating within a loosely continuous orders framework, and a second tactical (unit level) pip system limiting how you could maneuver units in each formation. But … that level of detail (which wouldn't have to be much) is probably beyond what most pip system gamers want!

All in all, they are much better than nothing, but not usually good enough.

@jwebster

• Variable Movement. If you have to move units one at a time and their distance is somewhat variable that leads to all sorts of interesting dilemmas. I usually use a base move + die roll in my rules to create C3 challenges for lower level commanders.

Cold Steel & Cannister has an elegant system, though it is square based.

Each command (division) has an objective. Each turn it must move toward it's objective. If it is at the objective (i.e. defending) then it stays put.

The C3 rules make it hard to change objectives. So the initial plan is easy to start, it's the changes that are tough.

Played it a few years back. The objective system worked, but I don't like squares and the game was very heavy on chits and markers on the table which I also hate. Still, it gave a very good feel, when divisions attacked, fell back, and attacked again!

I prefer a system with persistence of orders. Units will continue to attempt to follow their original order unless the situation they face changes. I use a reaction test to model the chance of the unit or formation commander being able to react to the change of circumstances. Able commanders get a di roll bonus poor ones a di roll reduction making it more or less likely they will change. The reaction result tables become the core of the C3 system which rather depends on me writing good tables!

I enjoy PIP and variable command systems. The PIP systems tend to present interesting game situations where there are a variety of possibilities and no 'right' answers, each game decision creating a different game path. Cards and dice systems also work well in this regard.

That doesn't mean they all do an equal job at representing historical combat. it all depends on the scale and focus.

For instance, I think the Chain of Command dice system of C3 works very well. But the scale is seconds of time over scale terrain of 40 yards to 12 inches.

However the same system for 19th Century command at the division, Corps or army level wouldn't. I agree with Elenderil. A presistence of orders is necessary in some way for that period and scale.

So I have come to the conclusion that "fun" in wargames is just as important as an accurate simulation of events.

JWebster:

I don't think anyone here would disagree with that assessment. The question is what is fun for folks. And it certainly isn't an issue of fun OR simulation…at least for most gamers.

Garth's point about subjective reality is one that comes up a lot, but I think it is missing the target. It isn't about your or my reality, but historical reality as seen by the participants. Here is an excerpt from Marshal Marmont's On Modern Armies page 96 [available free on google.]

The organization which I have described is suited for the existing armies; it is the necessary consequence of the nature of the arms and of the mode in which war is nowa-days made; and the fractional parts into which the army is divided are designed to facilitate the exercise of the command. But there are various kinds of command, and they change their character according to the number of soldiers.

If a General fights with 10,000 men, he ought to be in the midst of his troops, and often exposed to the fire of small arms.

If a General is in command of 30,000 men, he directs the movements of his troops and reserves, and though he is usually, except in extraordinary cases, beyond the range of musketry, he must be constantly within that of cannon, and he must remain within the space where the balls fall.

If a General directs 80,000 or 100,000 men, he fixes the plan, and gives his orders before the battle; sets the troops in movement, and awaits the issue of events in a central position.

During the action he becomes a kind of providence: he is ready with instructions for unforeseen cases, and he provides remedies for great accidents. He ought to expose himself before the battle, in order to see for himself, and to judge with precision of the state of things; having fulfilled these duties, he gives his orders, and lets each play the part assigned to him.

If things go well, he has nothing else to do; if accidents occur, he should meet them by combinations within his power; if things go very badly, and a catastrophe is imminent, he should place himself at the head of the last troops that he launches against the enemy, and his presence at that momentous period, will give them an impulse and produce a moral effect that will double their value.

It was after this fashion that Napoleon commanded.

Now, I can find other experienced military men who substantially agree with him, such as Foy, Ney, St. Cyr, Russian general Wurttemburg, Rebel General Longstreet, among others.

So, while a game designer is 'interpreting' historical information with game mechanics, it sure isn't a totally subjective view of reality… but instead very specific to the historical evidence. Any PIP system or other command mechanics would have to represent the sources. That's all we know of history. So, if I chose Marmont's 'history' as part of my command template, what I wanted to represent in my wargame, I'd have gone from the totally subjective to fairly objective criteria for my game design.

I think it is obvious that most PIP systems don't coorelate well with Marmont's description of what army commanders did during battle. From Marmont's comments, there isn't enough to justify them at the lower commands either.

Even so, there may well be other historical evidence that a designer would use that does support PIP mechanics at the army level, but I haven't seen any.

Garth's point about subjective reality is one that comes up a lot, but I think it is missing the target. It isn't about your or my reality, but historical reality as seen by the participants.

Well, speak for yourself, certainly.

For me, and frankly for every gamer I've ever known, "it's about" their own experience with playing the game and their own individual perceptions of what works and what doesn't. If Gamer Joe enjoys Game X and thinks it does a good job representing Napoleonic warfare, then I doubt you'll change Joe's mind by offering him quotes from Marmont or anybody else.

Cross-examine Joe all you like and demand that he justify why he likes that game and not a different game. He'll probably just give you a funny look and make a mental note to avoid you in the future. This is his leisure activity and it's not your place to tell him that he's doing it wrong.

This has been an interesting discussion to say the least.
The Marmont quote reinforces what one poster pointed out early on -- the role of a real general is to pretty much set the plan in motion and then wait around and see what happens. But we, as gamers, are playing the role of multiple generals, and probably some colonels and captains as well. I guess with enough players, you would achieve the same type of friction as orders get misinterpreted or players take their own ideas and apply them, ignoring most or all of the general orders received. Short of that, we are left with some sort of limiter of our helicopter-riding, in-all-places-at-once general, so you end up with pips or other constraints to limit the power of the all-seeing general.
CA TenWolde's comment made a good point about pips limiting your ability to put all things in motion as a general should be able to do. Perhaps the system is a bit backwards. Perhaps you should set objectives and put everything in motion, with the pips being used to change things once they are started. But then I guess that just brings us from pip systems to a "roll to change orders/objectives" system, doesn't it?
I'm OK with pips. They may not be a simulation of anything specific, but they are a mechanism to add some unknowns to the field of view of the helicopter general.

For me, and frankly for every gamer I've ever known, "it's about" their own experience with playing the game and their own individual perceptions of what works and what doesn't. If Gamer Joe enjoys Game X and thinks it does a good job representing Napoleonic warfare, then I doubt you'll change Joe's mind by offering him quotes from Marmont or anybody else.

Garth:
Of course, for a wargamer playing the game is about his own experience and what he thinks is a 'good job'. And Yes, I doubt that I'll change his mind about that experience by offering them quotes. That isn't the point of offering the quotes in the first place. He can enjoy what he wants to.

I thought we were discussing whether particular game mechanics represent *something* of actual history, not about Joe gamers personal gaming fun. Even so, I have to ask about Joe's judgment: "What makes him think that Game X does a 'good job' of representing Napoleonic warfare? What parts? Based on what history?

This isn't about "I like what I like and you can't change my mind with quotes." It's about history and how it is and isn't represented. To say something does a good job at representing Napoleonic warfare, you have to start with the history that comparison is based on.

You can't say that an artist did a good job on the portrait of Marshal Peawater if you have nothing to compare it to.