"Battle Captains - Development Report" Topic

I recently wrote a development report on our in development game Battle Captains. I plan to write a series of reports highlighting different aspects of the game, where the ideas come from, and what we hope to achieve. This report is about the Command and Order system of Battle Captains. Even if you're not interested in the rules I would like to read your opinion.

link

link

Very interesting ! I like your essay and approach.

Please keep us posted.

Cheers

This looks like a variation of the US Operational Order and Frag Order methods.

You stated "How these orders are interpreted by the platoon leaders is determined by their personalities" which I agree to an extent, however, the platoon leaders do have a "tool box" of limited tactics they can use for defending, maneuvering and attacking. Selecting the right or wrong tactic is not a personality trait but the way they carry it out would.

How cautious or aggressive a unit is depends a lot on how willing they are to advance while being fired upon. So I guess a cautious leader when his platoon is taken under fire would have them hunker down and take cover and call for artillery or air strike. A "bold" leader would lay down a base of suppressive fire and get a squad to start maneuvering on the enemy. So it may not so much be a matter of the unit failing a morale check but a decision by the platoon commander.

It seems like you are using the popular game mechanic of randomity to simulate FOW and realism. Things like artillery and air support are not really random. If you are the main effort in an attack or have an artillery FO with you most likely you have one of more artillery batteries in dedicated direct support. If there is a spotter plane in your area and has a squadron of fighter bombers waiting for him to designate targets in your sector that's not random either. These are things the company commander would know before the battle. The company commander has his own mortar section under his direct command which can respond quickly. That's not random. He may also have some attachments from battalion or regiment under his direct command.

While there may be some friction and misinterpretation in orders to platoon commanders a good company commander would do things like make an inspection of defensive positions after they are set up, establish rally points, designate TRP's for mortar fire and FPF and attach to specific platoons teams from his weapons platoon. Once the battle starts he's going to be in a good observation position or attach himself to a platoon to direct and coordinate to override poor execution of his platoon commanders and change orders as needed. There should be chances for the CO to override poor platoon commander decisions if he can observe it and is in communication.

You might also want some type of a rule or mechanic for an experienced NCO to "override" the poor decision making on the 2nd LT. You could also have a rule or mechanic that if a poor platoon commander is KIA the platoon's effectiveness gets better. In my experience the Platoon Sergeant and LT "consulted" each other on what to do and how to do it. The LT, Platoon Sergeant and Squad Leader may work out what's best together if they have time. In some accounts of battles I've read the NCO's ran the show and the platoon commander just "approved" of what they were doing and stayed out of their way. Of course you could have platoon commanders who think they know it all, that's always fun.

Wolfhag

@Wolfhag
The 'toolbox' of the platoon leaders is represented in the doctrine deck from which the player's hand is drawn. This mechanic has done a good job of putting the player, and therefore his subordinate leaders, inside the framework of their army's training system. The personalities of the leaders then informs how boldly they will use those tools.

Actually I have drifted away from randomness to simulate FOW, at least as much as possible. My theory now is to place the burden of friction and murphy's law in the hands of the opponent. The key is to design the game such that each player is likely to perform actions, or be in control of mechanisms that will be employed at the least favorable time for their opponent. Obviously some randomness is required or the game devolves to chess. As for fire support in Battle Captains, I realize that I didn't go into detail and therefore there may be some confusion. Artillery and air support assets are known by the CO at the beginning of the game and can be included in their initial plans (i.e. fire plans). However, when setting up the game a player will receive a randomized assortment of fire support assets, modified by the army's preponderance of said assets, drawn from a pre-designed pool. A player can still elect to include specific assets within their force, such as mortars, but this mechanic represents the handing out of fire support assets by higher command levels.

The internal friction of command that I referred to makes more sense when the turn length is considered. Battle Captains is based on a turn length of 120 seconds for the early period which covers 1935 to 1965. Thus, all the pre-contact preparations are handled in the pre-battle phase. Once the game begins it becomes more difficult for the CO to affect the battle, not drastically so but noticeable. The CO of the company has a command range within which these difficulties disappear allowing for leading from the front or the abstraction of overruling platoon leaders.

The senior NCO being possibly a better leader I honestly hadn't attempted to model but does merit thought.

I think you are on the right track letting the friction that the enemy creates put a crimp in your plans, create some chaos and make changing orders (most difficult in the middle of combat) hard to do. Even the worst boot LT can carry out orders in a parade ground situation.

I like the turn length. I agree that the CO has a lessening ability to effect the battle after it starts unless he takes direct action at the front. I've never been a fan of a an abstracted and generalized "Command and Control Range". I think command and control has to do with direct observation, wire and radio communications and runners.

In WWII company level HQ depended a lot on runners from individual platoons giving updates and status reports and then returning with ammo, replacements or other supplies. I think that's too boring for war games. You can find a lot of historical references to HQ's losing command and control because runners did not get through for one reason or another, including getting lost. A good runner could cover about 200 yards in the time frame of a turn in your game. That's something that would be somewhat randomized.

Wolfhag

The command range of a CO in the game is 100 yards in scale. In this range the passing of an order is automatic. Beyond this range there is a roll using a die type determined by the quality of the CO. The number to beat is based on the quality of the senior NCO corps. This creates a situation where the player can guarantee a certain level of command and control inside their personal sphere of influence but the effects of the battlefield, the professionalism of the NCO corps, and the quality of their own command presence and command team affect their ability to exact control outside that sphere. What in this dynamic would you change or alter?

With the time frame of your game I'd agree that within 100 yards an order would be automatic as I can visualize a runner getting there in one turn. If you are basing that 100 yards as automatic using a runner or signals I'd say terrain would play a great role in the range for automatic. If the company HQ and platoons are going to be static for any amount of time wires would be laid for field phones.

You keep mentioning the CO but not the HQ. The HQ can be static but the CO roaming around to areas he can best exert his influence. Platoons in comm with the HQ can be considered in comm with the CO.

My CO (early 1970's) always had a flare pistol to fire for signalling with prearranged colors for specific orders. It was mainly like starting the suppressive fire for an assault or lifting it so the assault element can make their final move. This way he was able to coordinate the engagement. He might have a squad with him to use like a QRF for unexpected situations.

If you are modelling a company commander exerting his command influence over his platoons you should consider all of the tools available to him like field phones, radios, runners and a jeep. Don't forget his XO either and in certain the Battalion CO may even show up.

Wolfhag

You have brought up something that I will need to clarify to a greater extent within the text. The rules for the CO is meant to govern his command staff as well to a certain extent. Thank you for that prompt.

I am hoping that issuing orders outside the personal range of the CO having a chance for failure based on the quality of the CO (HQ) will feel right to players. I imagine the rating of the CO not just representing the personal leadership quality of the officer but also their ingenuity and even ability to find a way to get the order through. As a side note, the command range of a CO (where orders are automatic) is variable depending on the communications resources of the army.

I just had an entertaining conversation with my younger brother (an artillery captain) where he complained at length that it should be called OC not CO as a CO would be battalion or higher. I made that mistake once and got my Sgt's metaphorical boot up my butt and haven't made the mistake since so should have known better. Funny part is I tried to argue with him as I couldn't let my brother win the argument!

Hey guys, I have just posted another development report this time talking about the pre-battle phase and battlefield shaping. Feedback would be awesome and appreciated.

link

link