"Command Points (Pips)" Topic

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.

tshryock:
You point out long-standing issues with representing command with wargames, but I would think that whether players act as multiple commanders and how much all depend on the rules.

I don't think that necessarily "end up with pips or other constraints to limit the power of the all-seeing general" as if that's all one can settle for.

I think that sometimes we wargamers ask the wrong questions, so we get unsatisfactory answers.

Armies placed constraints on all levels of command. Clauswitz writes about them, where the further you go down the chain of command, the more limits there are to an officer's decisions. If we asked what the actual constraints were on the levels of command in 19th century armies, some of those issues might be addressed 'naturally'.

Any number of gamers actively avoid some of the more obvious constraints, like hidden movement. On a table with 1 inch equalling 75 yards, neither side would be able to determine anything about enemy troops [other than some dust and dark shapes here and there] until within less than about 22 inches according to contemporary writers.

Just that would reduce the helicopter general quite abit, but many gamers want to see that spectacle of figures from table edge to table edge [it does stir the blood], so not much is done with it in some quarters and many rules sets.
[Heck, after painting a thousand figures, do I want the 'hidden'?] All-in-all, I think that many of the helicopter general issues, or those where a player is in multiple command haven't been seriously addressed because of gamer preferences. That is simply an observation rather than a statement of right and wrong, good or bad.

@McLaddie
The point about hidden movement is a really good one and wanting to get lots of figures on the table

When I talked about "needing both fun and accurate simulation" what I mean is that if people have nothing much to do, then they won't play that ruleset more than once.

From this discussion, a good historical simulation would be that once orders are set, they get followed with few player decisions

The best systems turn the C3 rules into part of the game that requires lots of player interaction

The Chain of Command concept of a scouting phase is really interesting. You could choose a proportion of troops to send as scouts, there could be scout party interactions creating a series of "drop off points" – there could then be die rolls to see what troops could come in at that point. This would set up some more challenging situations than starting at table edge. This could in some way simulate the fog of war than actually playing it out with complex rules and blinds and so on. The player challenges are now reacting to situation

An example I am thinking of is Wagram, where Bernadotte was not in the position that Napoleon thought he would be. A scouting phase could simulate something like this. Although it might not be an accurate simulation of events that created the situation, if it can create the situation then it has the same end result and lead to challenges for the players.

Thanks to all for some interesting discussions

John

From this discussion, a good historical simulation would be that once orders are set, they get followed with few player decisions.

John:
Well, that is generally the way it would be, but the commander/player would decide how many decisions he wanted to make. It was always a temptation to micro-manange. It also depends on how the game is designed.

I like CoC, and it has a number of well-done procedures. They are neigh-on brilliant for a game scaled to seconds per turn and 40 yards to the foot, but it wouldn't do at all for a rules set where the players are corps and army commanders.

The behaviors of subordinates like Bernadotte had a great influence on battles… or at least could. The trick is to generate a process that produces the 'situation' with at least some of the ability commanders had to predict and mitigate such situations.

It was a good discussion. I do think that we sometimes make it tougher to discuss wargame design than it needs to be.