"Command level terminology" Topic

McLaddie's thread about establishing categories is going in abstract philosophical circles, so I thought I'd start a new thread about something very concrete and attempt to get some constructive discussion going.

TMP sees many discussions (especially questions) about rules at a particular command "level". That is, someone wants to suggest or inquire about a "corps level" or "brigade level" or "platoon level" some other "level" of rules.

Unfortunately, these terms are a bit ambiguous, because there are at least two distinct meanings in common use:

• One understanding of the command "level" of a game is the (sometimes only approximate) command level at which most player command decisions are made. That is, in a "division level" game, a player is commanding a division and/or expected to have a division commander's aerie of the action. Clearly many (maybe most?) wargames rules only loosely commit to a command level and it's pretty common to see game systems break their own command level paradigm all over the place, but it's still useful to call a game "platoon level", "company level", "battalion level", "brigade level", etc. just to have a baseline for discussion.
  
• The most common alternate understanding of "command level" seems to be the size of command which players will use as the atom of maneuver. That is, a "battalion level" game implies the units are battalions.

This conflation of two distinct meanings makes it hard to use the command "level" term in conversation without long subsequent discussions clarifying the meaning. I'm going to suggest this problem can be solved by adding to the lexicon a bit.

For a variety of reasons the second usage seems like a less satisfactory application of the term "level", so I'll suggest a more accurate term would be "<command> element", as in "platoon element", "company element", "battalion element", "brigade element", etc. For example, a "division level game with brigade elements" would be a game where units = brigades but the standard "command" is a division.

I'll optimistically assume everyone reading this already understands why the distinction is important, and leave out that explanation unless someone requests further exposition.

I'll go a step further and suggest there may be a need for a third term in between the "level" and "element", a "command group". To use both General de Brigade and Le Feu Sacre as examples (just because I've been looking at Napoleonic rules recently), each of those games might be described as a "division level, battalion element" game, but with an intermediate "brigade group" as an organ of maneuver and C3. That is, the battalion elements are organized into brigade groups for purposes of C3, but the player is expected to command (at least) a division of multiple brigades.

<sips coffee>
Discuss.

- Ix

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less." (Lewis Caroll, Through the Looking Glass, 1871).

I use "level" to refer to the size of the largest force involved, so a divisional level game will have a division on one or both sides, not a corps. In a multi-player game one player will command the division, the others might command one or more brigades.

The word I use for the "atom of manoeuvre" (I like your expression) is "resolution".

As a rule of thumb the resolution should be two levels below the level of the game, so in a WW2 company level game one player will be the company commander, other players, if available, might command platoons, and the smallest unit shown on the table will be sections or squads (you might want to push it and show rifle groups and light machine gun groups separately, the risk is the game will be slowed down as more minutia is included).

<off to brew a mug of tea>

Command level for me is the level at which the player is asked to command. Not the level at which most decisions are made.

So I disagree with your definition of LFS as a division:battalion game with a brigade integer.

It is absolutely a corps:battalion game with a division integer.

If you don't have a minimum of a corps represented, half the command rules have no relevance.

The word I use for the "atom of manoeuvre" (I like your expression) is "resolution".

That makes sense to me. So, to clarify: a "division level game with battalion resolution" would have battalions as the smallest independent unit, organized into divisions (and presumably sub-organized into brigades/regiments/kampfgruppen/combat commands/etc. Correct?

- Ix

Command level for me is the level at which the player is asked to command. Not the level at which most decisions are made.

I deliberately combine those two concepts, since many rules also do so. Lots of rules use the "two levels down" principle John Armatys mentioned, which effectively means a player is simultaneously making command decisions at the highest level represented and at the two levels below that.

It's also possible (and not uncommon) in multi-player games to have one extra level of command represented above the one the game is designed for. E.g., in a multi-corps LFS game, someone ought to be the army commander, if only to be the tie breaker in group (in)decisions.

So I disagree with your definition of LFS as a division:battalion game with a brigade integer.

It is absolutely a corps:battalion game with a division integer.

If you don't have a minimum of a corps represented, half the command rules have no relevance.

Fair enough, my misapprehension, I stand corrected. If anything, that makes LFS an even more interesting example for discussions of rules design, since a corps:battalion split puts a lot of levels of command abstracted in between the max and min levels of representation.

- Ix

Thank you, Admiral. I think you're headed in the right direction, if only because the reverse breaks down rapidly. (Does anyone seriously read of an army level game and think the players command multiple armies?)
"Resolution" can be awkward to express, but the concept is clear enough. If it's a 1:20 figure-removal game, you can't lose fewer than 20 men at a time. If you have stand=platoon, you can't send a single tank or a squad of infantry on a mission. I'd been saying "fine grain" and "coarse grain" but "resolution" may let us express this with more precision.

So we would say "resolution is stand=squad" or some such?

Yellow Admiral wrote "So, to clarify: a "division level game with battalion resolution" would have battalions as the smallest independent unit, organized into divisions (and presumably sub-organized into brigades/regiments/kampfgruppen/combat commands/etc. Correct?"

Yes!

Robert Piepenbrink wrote "So we would say "resolution is stand=squad" or some such?"

Possibly – In a Napoleonic divisional level battalion resolution game the battalions might have say four stands, these could be used to show the formation of the unit and might be removed to reflect reduced combat capability, but they will not operate independently from the battalion. Perhaps better just to say "resolution (i.e. smallest unit in the game) = squad (or battalion or whatever)".

Good stuff, guys.

I was sometimes confused by this as well. Good discussion.

I think I'm a little bit of a control freak and want to command at the army level and not just see the resolution at the battalion level but command there as well. Real life chain of command is much too complicated and messy. That is the beauty of war games; you can have a theoretical and idealistic organizational structure and simultaneously command every level of it that you wish. Not realistic, but fun.

I think I'm a little bit of a control freak and want to command at the army level and not just see the resolution at the battalion level but command there as well. Real life chain of command is much too complicated and messy. That is the beauty of war games; you can have a theoretical and idealistic organizational structure and simultaneously command every level of it that you wish. Not realistic, but fun.

So the question isn't which is the *right way* to describe the level of the game, but which description would tell the player what they want to know about the game 'level.'

Any of them might work. Which is the one that is easiest to grasp and tells the most about the game PLAY.

I've always understood it as "the basic size of your army, before support is added in".

If a game says "company level" I'd expect a company of troops to be the norm, with some supporting elements added on.

When writing game intro's, I usually distinguish between "game scale" and "unit scale for much the same reason.
Game scale is the size of the game, unit scale is what one dude or one stand represents.
Of course, in some games one dude isn't meaningful because he can't act independently.

If a game says "company level" I'd expect a company of troops to be the norm, with some supporting elements added on.

Yes exactly, but to clarify: not as an absolute statement of game size, rather as a statement of how much stuff one player is expected to control.

I generally find that game systems written for one player to be able to control a certain size of force, also generally allow multiple players working together to multiply the size of the force. Thus, if "company level" means "about one company per player", I would expect it to scale up to about three companies per side in a six player game or nine companies per side in an 18 player game. Even though that puts one or more battalions per side on the table, it's still a "company level" game, because no player is pushing around more than about a company.

(Of course, multi-player games don't usually scale so linearly, and I often reduce the amount of stuff-per-player as I add more players… but that's a different subject unrelated to terminology.)

- Ix

Essentially I agree with John A. I often find it helpful to describe games in terms of what a base represents (as in one base equals one platoon etc) as well.

But yes, there are essentially three things, base representation, size of manoeuvre unit and size of force a player can normally expect to run.

I must confess I often describe my own games in terms of overall force size, so Drumfire is a corps level WW1 game, as in the attackers usually deploy a Corps or more. However the players typically command divisions, and there is only one corps commander, as it is designed to be a team game played against programmed defenders. Which probably doesn't aid clarity:)

I think including 'single player' and 'multi-player' adds too much confusion of meaning. It should be a separate descriptor, indicating if the rules are written with multi and/or single player in mind.

For command level description we should concentrate on:

1) The level of command one "side" represents. It doesn't matter how many players run the "side" just what command level it is.

2) The level of command one player typically commands (this may or may not be the same as above)

3) The level of unit representation or "resolution" (stands or bases are an irrelevance here, sabots and trays make such consideration very flexible and tells us nothing about the unit resolution – although another descriptor would certainly need to tackle the issue of 'basing')

(Personally I don't find resolution instantly clear as a term, I get it as described but if I came to the description blind I think it would throw me as a term)

"Resolution" might be simpler explained as "formations" or even "units" ?

f.x. "Each stand is a squad, units are platoons" or some such for a game where a platoon of multiple stands move and fight as one entity.

This is a healthy discussion. The descriptions are particularly relevant for C20th and later rule sets as very dissimilar commercial games are often offered at the same "level"

not as an absolute statement of game size, rather as a statement of how much stuff one player is expected to control.

Yes, Weasel is indicating another important aspect to categorize, the representative total size of the forces.

If I had a battalion level command game with company formations and platoon units, it would be good to understand whether my side was one battalion or a brigade.

There is an inherent challenge with this categorization, as well. Generally, wargames do not recreate actual command situations. Different things get distributed at different levels and "commanders" issue "orders" that have no real-world parallel.

For example, in a game where I control a Cold War USN battle group as a Commodore, I may issue screen orders, but most likely I am also executing the helm maneuvers for the ship (which are actually given by an Officer of the Deck (a junior officer) under the supervision of the Executive Officer in a battle situation). But when I assign fire, I am likely issuing an order similar to the Air Warfare Commander and implementing it directly with multiple individual ship responses.

Only in a military training exercise do you get enough people to issue realistic commands and cover all the other things that those people do. And sometimes, you don't get that there, either.

I like the approach so far, but you might want to identify several categories of "command" issued so you can map them to the levels.

What I see from this discussion is:

Size – What is on the board?

Sides – Who shares what victory conditions?

Maneuver Command – What is the range of command hierarchy for which maneuver command is given?

Fire Command – What is the range of command hierarchy for which fire command is given?

Other Command – What is the range of command hierarchy for which other significant command is given, and it's type? (A given game may have several of these).

Representation – What is represented on the board and with how many figures? (e.g., a company is on one stand with 12 figures at 1:10 representation)

All these answers would be expressed in standard military organizational terminology, which, of course, has variants, and in terms of numbers of figures. This is miniature wargaming, after all.

The top level for command would be where the order is given and the bottom level would be for what level are physical actions (moving figures, rolling dice, awarding damage) taken.

All these answers would be expressed in standard military organizational terminology

Whilst that may work for 18th Century and up, you're going to have a hard time describing this for Assyrian Empire rules or whatnot.

And I think you have too many sub-categories, we're not trying to define everything about a set of rules, just give a standardised common vocabulary/categorisation so when someone asks what "size game" or "command level" rule set XYZ is aimed at you can reply with "side is X, command is Y and units are Z" with a pretty good chance that they will understand what you're saying.

If they want to know about manoeuvre or firing systems, activation, basing or solo play that's a different set of question and reply categories.

Another issue for defining level: if a set of rules presumes that one side is a company with supporting elements, rest assured that some players will deploy a battalion per side or more. Even if this doesn't break the game, the game is still a company level game.

When I first started Napoleonic gaming back in the 70's, we took rules that likely worked well as divisional level games and fielded corps, playing well into the wee hours without a resolution. And kept at it. We were young.

I think the reason why terminology such as "brigade-level game" never caught on is because to many players, it is rather useless as something they need or want to know. By defining it more precisely is missing the issue.

What – at least in my experience – most players are really interested in when considering a new ruleset:
- how many units do I need for a typical game on a 6x4 table?
- how many figures do I need for one unit? (and possibly, in what intended scale?)
- what does one unit represent?

Thus, I might conclude I need 8 units of 24 figures each, with each unit representing a battalion.

That's very practical information related to setting up a game, not information related to what command level the game is supposed to reprsent. IMO, most players are interested in the former, not the latter. This is also visible in some popular rulesets, that leave the whole question of command level open to the player to answer.
The third question "what does one unit represent" is enough information combined with the how many units question for extrapolating to the intended command level if one really wants to know.

I think the reason why terminology such as "brigade-level game" never caught on is because to many players, it is rather useless as something they need or want to know. By defining it more precisely is missing the issue.

But I've seen the question asked dozens of times on TMP and immediately dissolve into chaos as one person answers "division" and another "battalion" because they don't understand the question (or maybe the answer?) similarly – that's why it's useless.

Thus, I might conclude I need 8 units of 24 figures each, with each unit representing a battalion.

This is certainly valid info that many people would like but its another categorisation. The discussion isn't "what's the best/most important to me category"; it's "how do we ensure that we all understand the category values for command level"

We need to discuss one category, agree a basic lexicon and then move to another category discussion. Well, obviously we don't 'need' to do anything but if the object of the exercise is to create workable categorisations, then yes we do 'need' to.

Phil Dutre:
I think the reason why terminology such as "brigade-level game" never caught on is because to many players, it is rather useless as something they need or want to know. By defining it more precisely is missing the issue.

Zippee:
But I've seen the question asked dozens of times on TMP and immediately dissolve into chaos as one person answers "division" and another "battalion" because they don't understand the question (or maybe the answer?) similarly – that's why it's useless.

+1 Zippee. Thus, this thread.

Phil Dutre:
What – at least in my experience – most players are really interested in when considering a new ruleset:
- how many units do I need for a typical game on a 6x4 table?
- how many figures do I need for one unit? (and possibly, in what intended scale?)
- what does one unit represent?

The answers to such important questions are only made easier with concise terminology. For instance, the single sentence "It's a brigade level Napoleonics game with 1:20 scale battalion units, written for 15mm or 28mm figures" answers all of those questions at once. Naturally new wargamers may be baffled by such answers until they learn the jargon, but people interested in miniature wargaming enough to join an Internet forum dedicated to it are highly motivated and will pick up the lingo quickly.

- Ix

This is certainly valid info that many people would like but its another categorisation.

I don't think it is another categorisation. Both approaches are about specifying the scale of the game. Putting that in game terms is more useful to most gamers than putting it in real-life command level terms, which adds an additional layer of indirectness.

Both approaches are about specifying the scale of the game. Putting that in game terms is more useful to most gamers than putting it in real-life command level terms, which adds an additional layer of indirectness.

True, but it's in deeper discussions about game design where indirectness is what's desired, and where a more concise jargon is needed. Thus this thread. "Most gamers" just looking to try a game for the first time are unlikely to get into deeper discussions about game design where terms like "brigade level" and "company resolution" are likely to be important.

- Ix

etotheipi:
Yes, Weasel is indicating another important aspect to categorize, the representative total size of the forces.

If I had a battalion level command game with company formations and platoon units, it would be good to understand whether my side was one battalion or a brigade.

I guess I disagree we need to invent any special terminology to describe the scope of a scenario. Existing terminology is sufficient. The size of a scenario is not usually set in stone in miniatures rules; most rules are meant to scale up or down to accommodate many possible scenarios. I would expect most "battalion level" rules to play with 2 battalions or 12, as the players see fit. The size of game is really set by factors outside the rules.

To replay a particular historical battle, the historical OOB determines the size of the game. The command level of the rules might determine how many players you invite, how many units you use, how big the table is, etc. For instance, the 1811 battle of Albuera might make a very interesting 3-player game with corps level rules, a fun 6-12 player game with division level rules, or a sprawling, noisy, chaotic, messy game with 2-3 dozen gamers each pushing 1-3 brigades using brigade level rules. Either way, the only apt descriptor for the size of the Albuera scenario would be "whole battle level" or "scenario level", which is really no help at all. You just have to read the actual OOB of the Battle of Albuera to see what units were there.

If you're choosing the rules first and want to find an appropriately scaled scenario to suit them, knowing that the rules you want to play are battalion level would imply that the game should have about one battalion per player, playing with company level rules implies about 1 company per player, playing corps level rules implies one corps per player, etc. Conversely, if you go at it the other way around and plan a battalion level game with 3 battalions involved, you're probably going to limit your invitation list to 3-4 players so everyone has enough stuff to play with, because if 10 guys show up to play, you're either going to have to alter the scenario so there are enough units to keep everyone involved, or tell some folks to sit it out.

- Ix

If you're choosing the rules first and want to find an appropriately scaled scenario to suit them, knowing that the rules you want to play are battalion level would imply that the game should have about one battalion per player, playing with company level rules implies about 1 company per player, playing corps level rules implies one corps per player, etc.

I agree. It is about what the rules offer because scenarios are built around them including the number of players that 'can' participate.

I would expect most "battalion level" rules to play with 2 battalions or 12, as the players see fit. The size of game is really set by factors outside the rules.

I'll respectfully disagree to some extent.

Some games scale pretty well (one of the benefits of "IGOUGO" incidentally) but many do not, either because the command systems aren't built for it or because the complexity makes a large battle too ponderous (or lack of complexity makes a small battle too limited).

There's a reason Chain of Command players aren't typically playing 5 man patrols or battalion level actions f.x. :)

I disagree that we have anything to disagree about. :-)

Many games scale badly, some not at all, and I totally agree that classic IGOUGO is one of the more scalable turn sequence arrangements (which is why I keep re-implementing it in games I convert to multi-player). But that's a conversation best reserved for discussions of particular rules, and has nothing to do with terminology.

My point was only that there's no need for special terminology to describe some sort of fixed game size, at the very least because miniatures games so frequently defy fixed sizes.

- Ix

So, what's the equivalent of a "brigade-level" game for the medieval or ancient periods? How would you categorise DBA as a ruleset? Or for that matter, scifi or fantasy? More (historical) rulesets than you think are agnostic about this kind of stuff. Cfr. Hail Caesar, which explicitly says so in its section on how to put together an army.

Moreover, for some historic periods and/or countries a "brigade" can mean many different things.

Hence, if you want something that is widely applicable, I really think you should do in game terms rather than real-life-equivalent terms: number of units on the table (can be a range, e.g. This game works best with 6-12 units per side), figures per unit (also a range), and to make the link with RL, what a single unit is supposed to represent (if there is a RL equivalent). If I know I will typically play with 8-12 battalions, and if I know the period, I can work out the intended command level of the game myself. And if I don't know the period, "brigade-level" doesn't mean a thing to me, no matter how precisely defined.

Despite the fact that trying to categorize games based on the real-life command level can be useful, it is really limited to a specific timeframe and to a specific subgenre of rulesets.

The more I think On Phil's comments the more I believe he has a point.

The command level (platoon-company-battalion-brigade-division-corps) metric does work for 18th C plus, even if the rules themselves are quite fluid in their application. Black Powder for instance can be played at Brigade through Corps with a unit resolution of company through brigade. And it's not the only set that allows you to choose a resolution point. Doesn't change the usefulness of the categories though.

However for earlier eras (let alone fantasy) we end up in the murky terminology of "mass battle" and "skirmish". So I think we do need a different terminology.

However where I disagree is that I think we can have a different terminology, the categorisation of "period" is the very first categorisation we make and probably the only one we vaguely agree on (I say vaguely because we disagree on where 'Ancients' ends, whether 'Dark Ages' exists, and what the division between 'early modern' and 'renaissance' is).

Numbers of figures is problematic as a definition though, as is number of bases. Number of units is perhaps better.

For instance in Impetus we use large bases with whatever number of figures looks good (it plays no part in the game mechanics) and that number can change dramatically between figure scales (8 28mm figs, 30 10mm figs: same unit/base).

In FOG a group of bases make a unit and each base has a defined number of figs that illustrate the nature of the playing piece. However in game terms a FOG unit is not dissimilar to an Impetus unit/base.

So how many unit/bases can the game handle – depends on the point value set for the game typically. . . with some bases being 'cheap' and others 'expensive' so the range can be quite variable.

Zippee's suggestion also has the advantage that it works for things like 1HourWargames or other Neil Thomas stuff, where you have a fixed number of units abstractly representing your battle (f.x. in 1HourWargames, you always have 6 units)

I guess I disagree we need to invent any special terminology to describe the scope of a scenario. Existing terminology is sufficient. The size of a scenario is not usually set in stone in miniatures rules;

But I didn't say "rules". I said game. Our QILS rules are for one command per based figure. A based figure could be a lot of things. An individual. A company. A watchstation on a naval ship.

most rules are meant to scale up or down to accommodate many possible scenarios.

that the rules you want to play are battalion level would imply that the game should have about one battalion per player

I'm not sure which of those two contradictory things you are trying to say. That there is intentional freedom in how many players and atomic forces are in a game, or that players should always expect one player per atomic unit. That certainly isn't the case for skirmish games.

My point was only that there's no need for special terminology to describe some sort of fixed game size

If that was your point, there absolutely is. It would be important to explain to your '1 battalion per player' rules that the rules are optimal for 3-6 battalions per side, two sides. Otherwise they might buy them expecting to play one on one battalion games.

It's something the BGG (and game publishers) doesn't address for board games. Settlers of Catan is for 2-6 players. But it is horrible for 2 players (same with some of our other favourites like Ticket to Ride or Pandemic).

The board game reference is because some games break down on practical things like turns too long or too many moving parts for large games. But others break down because you remove the strategy and interesting dynamics with too few.

Number of units is perhaps better.

Yep.

Representation – What is represented on the board and with how many figures? (e.g., a company is on one stand with 12 figures at 1:10 representation)

Because, honestly, with atomic (for command purposes) units, it doesn't matter to the rules if I have ten or six figures actually on the base, nor if I have any or just a cardboard flat. It may matter to other things, but not how the rules work.

Moreover, for some historic periods and/or countries a "brigade" can mean many different things.

I completely agree.

All these answers would be expressed in standard military organizational terminology, which, of course, has variants, and in terms of numbers of figures. This is miniature wargaming, after all.

But I don't think that means you need to get rid of the military terminology. Just relate it back to the abstract unit concept (though I am becoming more attracted to the "atomic command level" terminology as I don't know that anyone has actually used that for their forces, so it divorces it from someone's specifics).

Part of the game is evocation of the milieu (real or fictitious). I don't think there's anything wrong with rules discussion of Medieval English companies and French compagnies with different sizes and compositions. But we do need to relate those back to the rules function.

I think including those in the discussion enables someone familiar with the history to relate it to how the rules operate and someone not so familiar to learn something about the history.

+1 etotheipi

Phil Dutre:
Despite the fact that trying to categorize games based on the real-life command level can be useful, it is really limited to a specific timeframe and to a specific subgenre of rulesets.

Absolutely, but that doesn't make terms like "brigade level" useless, just limited to particular genres of gaming. For the historical time periods where such relation to real-world command structures is useful, it's very useful, even critical. As a group, wargamers are naturally pedantic and love to relate wargames to the history they are recreating. It's part of the hobby, and for some periods, an outright requirement. It makes sense to have baseline terminology that assists communication about game mechanics in settings after the dawn of formal military organization. Thus, this thread.

- Ix

Thre are two parameters here which are getting confused in my opinion.

One is the number of elements figure element that a game will typicaly use.

The second is the command level at which elements(are) contolled.

Takeing the first the number of elemnts the "easy bit" . Past experience by me is that games, having one player a side (I have no love or experinec of multi player games) becomes unworkable in the typical timescale of 2 to 3 hrs play with about 50 element or more. Now that may not be figures, if you can base some or all of them on temporary of pemanet bases so there are not more than 50 things to move at a time. Better is 30 things and beginner proably 10 to 20 sometimes even less. So some where there in a "game definition" there needs to be a "nuber of things to move description". 50 appox. is a limit as it take time to lift a "piece" and move it somewhere else regarless of the rules.

The command level could be abstracted as the number of pieces that any "command" level contols and how many of those there are.

This is very abstract I use clear statments based on actual armies so my elemnts are Fireteams of 1 to 5 men. Vehicles are represenred at 1:1 and the system has a command system analogious to the real world. Platoon commanders contol the basic positions of fireteams. Company comaders have an ability to influence platoons and or other company level assets. Even here you need to be careful as in some scenarios the 50 limit dictates the size of the game. A tank heavy company has only say 20 elements to move at most well within the practical limit. A infantry company may have close on 50 if they need to split up, which is close to unworkable for most players in an evening regardless of the rule type.

So as an example in my rules you could say its 1;1, elements are typicaly fireteams and the highest command level in a standard game would be a company commader in a combined arms game. Infantry only comanies may not be practical for ther than experts in the game. The model itelf (The rules) work happily up to at least a couple of battaloins and their supports but not in a one eveing game.

This does show that describing a game even if you try and eliminate jargon is not that simpl. If we end up without categories but a list of what needs to be covered in a description to make it unambigious would be a step forward.

QILS is a simple and quick skirmish level wargaming system. It supports multiple genres of gaming…

Dirigibles of Doom is a beer'n'pretzels type game…

you have to start someplace. Here is how etotheipi describes a couple of his games. Obviously he is working to communicate information about his games. How could that work as a general description?

Well, 'quick and simple' would need some objective design markers to make it applicable to any deign. Quick would have to have some time limit and simple, some game descriptor.

'Skirmish' Could mean any a game using individually based figures with no more that X [40? 80?] per side.

Company level, Battalion Level, Brigade Level, Division Level games

Could represent what stands/groups of figures represented as a unit [or even typical stand representative strength]
rather than player command levels.

There isn't any right way to do it. It is about what kind of information is useful and easily made objective [that is, everyone can recognize the same traits in the games regardless of likes or dislikes, etc. ]

beer'n'pretzels type game could be a category if it has some common meaning. At the moment it implies simple, quick and not particularly historical or representative, but I have seen a wide variety of games called beer'n'pretzels type games.

'Skirmish' Could mean any a game using individually based figures with no more that X [40? 80?] per side.

Yep. My distinction is that you issue maneuver, fire, and other commands to each 1:1 figure on the board. My design limit (not to be part of the terminology, I would hope) no more than 15-20. I will make allowances for individual "squads" where you move and roll for each figure, but the player is expected (and advantaged to in the victory conditions) to keep squads together rather than having 4-6 "lone wolves".

However, I use QILS for squad and larger level games where one base is one squad, company, etc. Still, you have that optimal number of "units" (Atomic Order Entities -oooh that has a nice acronym!) with the standard unit size all on one base. I would still call that a "skirmish", just skirmishing with really big things. Probably not the best idea to adopt that perspective on the term industry-wide. But it does highlight the need for clarity.

beer'n'pretzels type game could be a category if it has some common meaning. At the moment it implies simple, quick and not particularly historical or representative

Dirigbles and doom are both real things, but, yeah the game is more about having some fun and playing a game with momentum. The momentum is not a physics accurate model, but it does force the players to think turns ahead when issuing orders. Lead your target. Make sure you don't run into that big, pointy building over there…

I also advocate for home-baked pretzels and home-brewed beer!

-----
I am enjoying this discussion and have some brain fodder for rewriting my QILS designer's notes and including them with a "revision" of the rules.

Me:
I guess I disagree we need to invent any special terminology to describe the scope of a scenario. Existing terminology is sufficient. The size of a scenario is not usually set in stone in miniatures rules;

etotheipi
But I didn't say "rules". I said game.

"The system defined by the rules" is one of the meanings of the word "game". I was clarifying my usage, because the word "game" in this context is ambiguous, but either way my point is pretty much the same:

I don't see a need to have special jargon describing the min/max/optimum size of a game, where "game" is defined as "a system of rules".

Neither do I see a need for special terminology to describe the min/max/optimum size of a game, where "game" is defined as "a group event of two or more people playing a game system together".

I do see a need to clarify min/max/optimal size of scenario for any given set of rules, but I think simple statements in plain language will do. You just provided us an example yourself:
Settlers of Catan is for 2-6 players. But it is horrible for 2 players (same with some of our other favourites like Ticket to Ride or Pandemic).
That is a very useful statement (and in my opinion, accurate), but I don't see how any special jargon would help clarify it. This is a thread about terminology. That's all I'm talking about.

I suspect most of us can define min/max/optimum size of scenario for long lists of games. For purposes of discussion, here are two examples drawn from my own experience:

• Regimental Fire & Fury is a brigade level game with regiment/battery resolution. Veteran RF&F players can actually manage a sizeable division at a good pace in a 2-4 player game, but to keep the game moving I recommend limiting new players to a single brigade of 3-6 units, and in larger games (5 or more players) I recommend limiting everyone to about 4-8 units regardless of those units' organization.
  
• Fleet Action Imminent claims right in the title to be a "fleet action" game, but I find it works best with an approximate cap of around a dozen ships per player, organized into maximum of 3 maneuver groups per player (divisions, squadrons, flotillas, 1 capital ship plus escorts, etc.). With more than 4 players, I recommend limiting each player to 2 maneuver groups and less than 10 ships, and with 8 or more players, one maneuver group and no more than about a half dozen ships. But I also recommend against playing with more than 8 players if you want to conclude the game in less than a day.

So…. what game-design-specific terms would you introduce to increase the clarity of those statements? Please demonstrate. I haven't run across any, and anything I made up from whole cloth would probably sound like psuedo-academic claptrap that would obfuscate rather than clarify my meaning.

Me:
most rules are meant to scale up or down to accommodate many possible scenarios.

[…]that the rules you want to play are battalion level would imply that the game should have about one battalion per player

etotheipi:
I'm not sure which of those two contradictory things you are trying to say.

Those aren't contradictory, adding or subtracting players is one way of scaling a game up or down. I was showing how one could use a command level description for a set of rules to assist in evaluating a game's scalability.

Most rules are meant to scale up or down to accommodate many possible scenarios, so deliberately avoid statements of a maximum scenario size. Many boardgames define the number of players, but most miniatures games do not, and again, are flexible on that point. I agree with you that many games should have some loosely-defined maximum, but I'm asserting that the command level description assists communication of this evaluation (at least for periods where "command level" is an appropriate statement, (sic Phil Dutre above)). Thus, I said previously:
…knowing that the rules you want to play are battalion level would imply that the game should have about one battalion per player, playing with company level rules implies about 1 company per player, playing corps level rules implies one corps per player, etc.
My point here was that there is no absolute "maximum" game implied in the command level statement. There may be a practical limit to any given game system or game session, but that limit likely varies with numerous factors outside the command level the game is designed to represent: number of players, commitment of the players, complexity of the rules mechanics, pace of game, size of table, length of time available, player experience with the rules or even with wargaming in general, house rules, and on and on. Evaluation of those things is open to discussion, and I enjoy such discussions, but I fail to find any special terminology about min/max/optimum game sizes that would assist such discussions. This thread is about terminology.

Me:
My point was only that there's no need for special terminology to describe some sort of fixed game size

etotheipi:
If that was your point, there absolutely is. It would be important to explain to your '1 battalion per player' rules that the rules are optimal for 3-6 battalions per side, two sides.

I think your second sentence seems perfectly clear, and it didn't use any new terms, nor even any game-design-specific terms (just standard military jargon), and thus disproves the first sentence immediately preceding it. If you think there is a need for any special terminology, introduce some that improves the second sentence without obfuscating it.

etotheipi
Otherwise they might buy them expecting to play one on one battalion games.

I consider that a marketing or even game review issue, not a terminology issue. This thread is just about terminology.

I totally agree with you that it would be nice to have clear statements about each game system describing the min/max/optimum size of game, and when possible, how the game qualitatively changes with different quantities of players. I just do not know of any special terms that would help such a description in any way, except the command level and command resolution and manever group size statements we've already discussed. I am happy to entertain such terms if someone will introduce some.

- Ix

etotheipi:
I also advocate for home-baked pretzels and home-brewed beer!

I want to play at your house! :-)

- Ix

Just be careful he doesn't brew the pretzels and bake the beer! :)

Those aren't contradictory, adding or subtracting players is one way of scaling a game up or down. I was showing how one could use a command level description for a set of rules to assist in evaluating a game's scalability.

But that's exactly my point. You mean one thing when you write things, "scale", but others may interpret it to mean something else. When you think of scale in terms of units per player instead of total units or total players in the game, you get a different interpretation of that type of statement.

The fact that there isn't any current standard terminology, I believe is the point of this and the other thread.

The discussion about what different limits there are on the game (is max "units" significant? max players? min "units"? min players?, etc.) seems to indicate that this concept is important. Important concepts always benefit from having standard terminology.

How many threads on TMP chase around for a dozen posts before people know what they are disagreeing (or unwittingly agreeing) about?

Just be careful he doesn't brew the pretzels and bake the beer!

SWMBO takes care of the pretzels, so no problem. I do the beer (though no batch on right now), so you're taking your chances there!

This is reminiscent of the old D&D joke about levels "why would we go down a level to go up a level?"