"Are command radii artificial and unhelpful?" Topic

I'm trying to figure out exactly what purpose command radii perform. Most games give some form of penalty, either to command, or to combat, morale, or sometimes both, when command radii are not adhered too. I wonder if these rules are not simply a convenient shorthand for a host of tactical factors that would be very difficult to parse (tactical reaction times, the movement of the commanding officer during an abstracted period of time, the failure of command signals in combat, etc).

So, what should they do, and should we even use them? For instance, say you have a division command radii of 12". One of your battalions gets cut off on the extreme edge of that radius and is surrounded by enemy cavalry and being shot at by artillery. Can we really say that being within 12" of the division commander (or brigade commander, etc) is really going to have any difference on that units morale or combat effectiveness? As compared to being one inch farther away?

Perhaps the only bonus or penalty involved with command radii should turn on movement issues, and questions of morale be left up to the individual units tactical situation relative to enemy action?

Otherwise, we face the possibility that the failure of Pickett's Charge was because Longstreet sent his troops outside of his command radius, but had he moved forward several hundred meters to the middle of the field, yet behind all the troops, he might've lent them a battle-winning advantage… through the sheer abstract presence of his being.

Doing something more complex always leads to "just one more thing" syndrome. I've seen games where command radius can not go through enemy units.

Well, I don't want to do that… I'm thinking about just the opposite. Having no command radii, and relying on the tactical penalties for isolated maneuver units to cause the players to deploy correctly- which is, after all, why units move in coordinated bodies in real life.

I wonder who came up with the command radii concept in the first place? Someone must be responsible, because it is artificial, and its in most historical war-games in some form. Grognards?

Well, the command radii is unavoidable, when base of General is bigger than bases of units. You simple can't move your general, no space on table for this.

In a skirmish game, I always imagined it was "the range you can shout".

Troops outside this distance might get up to all sorts of nonsense (or do nothing in particular) because they can't receive your orders.

I wouldn't automatically characterize command radius rules as "artificial and unhelpful", but they certainly can be if applied too literally.

I think you already hit the nail on the head in the OP:

I wonder if these rules are not simply a convenient shorthand for a host of tactical factors that would be very difficult to parse (tactical reaction times, the movement of the commanding officer during an abstracted period of time, the failure of command signals in combat, etc).

There are plenty of other approaches, as even you have suggested:

Having no command radii, and relying on the tactical penalties for isolated maneuver units to cause the players to deploy correctly- which is, after all, why units move in coordinated bodies in real life.

Command radii can be a mechanically simple and convenient way of abstractly enforcing formation-keeping and command cohesion. In most cases I prefer command radii to long lists of special modifiers or if-then-else statements.

- Ix

Play a game with no command radius and watch your battalions fly all over the table like guided missiles.

They are a solution to a problem, but by no means the only solution.

I wonder who came up with the command radii concept in the first place? Someone must be responsible, because it is artificial, and its in most historical war-games in some form. Grognards?

Are you looking for a scapegrognard? :-)

- Ix

Of course they are artificial. It is a wargame, everything in it is artificial.

They are a simple way to model something complex on the table top. I find them useful, a command radius represent the distance that it is easy to get a command out.

"One of your battalions gets cut off on the extreme edge of that radius and is surrounded by enemy cavalry and being shot at by artillery. Can we really say that being within 12" of the division commander (or brigade commander, etc) is really going to have any difference on that units morale or combat effectiveness?"

In this circumstance the concept of command radius is not the problem. The problem would be having a level of command radius that overcomes all those negatives.

Certainly a +1 for the commander being nearby shouldn't counter the surrounded by enemy cavalry and shot by artillery.

Command radius seems like a perfectly reasonable construct to me. Troops who are not in contact with their command hierarchy do not fight or maneuver as one. Motivation and initiative will also decline. The total combat efficiency of the unit degrades.

The question of 11 inches vs. 12 inches is one we face in half a dozen aspects of wargaming. Why should an AP projectile lose 30 or 40% of it's penetration as it crosses the boundary between 11 and 12 inches? Why should unprotected infantry be perfectly safe from an artillery barrage when they are 12 inches from the aimpoint, but suffer full risk when only 11 inches away?

Sure, it is an arbitrary threshold. But we accept this as a necessary simplification on so many fronts. So also, it is an artificial threshold on the question of command radius. Is there a yes/no demarkation line at exactly some particular distance from the lieutenant? No. But the farther away you are, the less likely that you will respond to his will with full efficiency. Rather than have a sliding scale (Oh, you are 11.5 inches away? You suffer a 46.8% reduction in efficiency), we make a threshold line.

My preferred ruleset is ODGW's Mein Panzer. The basic command radius rule is very simple. Each time a unit is activated, all elements of the unit within command radius get an action and a move. That action can be almost anything, including a move. So if you're not doing anything else (shooting, spotting, checking morale, loading/unloading) you can do a double move. But if you are out of command radius you don't get the move, only the action. So you can shoot, or spot, or move. But you can't shoot and move, or communicate and move, or double move.

It's not that you can't fight if you are outside of the radius, but you fight less efficiently. So for example if you want to leave part of your unit behind to provide a base of fire while the rest of your unit advances. They'll sit and fire. But when you decide you want them to move up, they won't be as fast, or they won't spot and fire while their doing it. Or if your command stays with the fire support, the advancing troops will be more likely to go to ground (they can't move and shoot, or remove suppression and move, in the same turn).

It's a very simple structure, but it provides an interesting incentive to keep your commands together.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Agreed with Mark1 – <Enter a Grognard>

Back in the dim past there were many mechanisms to simulate command and control and overcome the all-seeing-eye problem.

You've have messenger figures galloping around the battle field carrying orders on what units were to do next. That meant writing out a message on a bit of paper (and usually limited to a dozen words) then moving a figure around until it reached the unit. A turn to absorb the command and off it would go. This mechanism was a first attempt to stop the "All-Seeing-All-Knowing" problem of the gamer having (as Extracrispy notes) battalions flying hither and yon reacting to problems they couldn't know or see. It's where teh rules concerning enemy units blocking command radius come from. The messenger cannot ride past an active enemy unit without being shot / stabbed / noogied as he/she runs past.

Simplify this and you got a "measure the distance and see how many moves it would take a cavalry /jeep /pogo stick to cross that distance – that how long it takes to change a units orders" variant on the C&C problem. Now you're into keeping count of turns passed before a unit could change what it was doing. The same as Mark1 notes above.

Then the boardgamers – notably SPI in the hey day – who were working with hexes, simplified this to a command distance. Everything inside it could do what you wanted, everything outside could not or had severe restrictions on what it could do.

Figure games took this to heart as it did make things easy to figure out. And so we get the command radius.

There are many mechanisms you could use if you don't like radii. State a battle plan and follow it, then use look up tables and dice or maybe pull cards from a deck in order to change a units actions.

You do not have to follow exactly and only what it says on the side of the box. That's why house rules were created.

Command radii, in and of themselves, are no more artificial than the delimitation of game turns and movement distance within such a game turn. Depending on the scale, the radius is representative of how far a runner can get within that turn.

Certainly, without a doubt, rules which don't take into account the presence of enemy units does break the suspension of disbelief.

As Extra Crispy posted, command radius keeps players sending units all over the place. Also command radius represents the chain of command. So can a unit function if its out of command radius? Yes, but it won't operate in conjunction with the units that are in command radius. So it limits the players "god" view and management of their units on the table top.

One of the problems with the question--and command radii--is that they can and do represent different things depending on the designer and the scale of the game.

To do a little history, the notion started with Avalon Hill and their Gettysburg game. It was meant to keep players from having divisions running all over the place. It was an artificial restraint, in that the mechanic had nothing to do with command control other than the name… which the designers acknowledged.

Since then, the term has been used for all sorts of purposes including representing things completely outside of the any command system.

Having said that, I often see command radii used in 18th and 19th century division and higher level rules sets which are simple and simply nonsense when it comes to 'command control' methods and issues and battlefield dynamics, offering nothing like the actual command control challenges actually faced.

Others, like battalion or smaller skirmish games where the range of a commander's voice was the control mechanism to work.

So pick a game or rule set and then we better address the question.

My preferred ruleset is ODGW's Mein Panzer. The basic command radius rule is very simple. Each time a unit is activated, all elements of the unit within command radius get an action and a move. That action can be almost anything, including a move. So if you're not doing anything else (shooting, spotting, checking morale, loading/unloading) you can do a double move. But if you are out of command radius you don't get the move, only the action. So you can shoot, or spot, or move. But you can't shoot and move, or communicate and move, or double move.

Mark: Not having played that set of rules, what is the scale of the game and how does the command radius represent the communication and control methods during WWII?

I think it can be useful if jazzed up a bit with variations for terrain, visibility and intervening enemy units.

If you are within the range where a visual signal or shout could not reasonably be ignored then it is easier to get your units to do what you want.

One of the things about higher trained units is that they tend to do the right thing 'on their own initiative' rather than hunker down and just try not to get killed.

It is an abstraction and will sometimes produce goofy results, but it's a lot better than nothing and less trouble than some more complex things that will also at times fall short.

Personally, my only real problem with command and control restrictions is when they are too rigid. As noted in the comment above historically units tend not to just stand and ignore their surroundings when out of command if in proximity to an enemy or being attacked.

In my one experience with Spearhead, a German counterattack into the flank of an attacking column could not be reacted to. Historically, the problem is usually the reverse – keeping units under fire or attack (particularly from a flank or the rear) from reacting to that attack. Particularly that portion of the force being attacked.

In BKC, commanding a Russian prepared defence in a forest, the Russian command and control restraint were exactly the same as they would have been in a meeting engagement and the mortar battery was restricted to direct fire. Lack of radios in a prepared position where wire would have been laid would not have mattered until the defenders left their original positions and the radios in use at that time would actually have been reduced in range in wooded terrain.

Ohh, we may have touched upon this very same subject before forwardmarch in relation to regulating battalions/directing units.
Maybe a google search will throw these up again?

The short and simple answer is: yes, artificial, but not entirely unhelpful. It is though, flawed as a means of representing c&c.

Apart from the nonsense; command radius determining individual unit combat values, inexplicably not being able to move a unit when all of the other units in the command ARE moving, etc., one tends to get unintended, knock-on effects in other areas of game systems.
I recall one game where a player playing the part of a poorly rated Napoleonic Russian general, decided that the way to overcome his character`s short command radius was to mass his units in deep columns and with all his battalions within "command and control", away he went manoeuvring all over the table – players usually find a way!
So, the result was that deployment to line was not possible, it was not a battle array that may be expected of a period general.

Way back in the day, I suggested that the alterantive, regulation, was actually easier to understand and play, than command radii.
McLaddie was there too, to provide historical examples of how it worked.
However, even though I believe that chaps like Bill and myself won through in those discussions, since then, most established rules designers have continued with radii. I suspect that they do this simply because gamers are familiar with concept and conclude that it is better to play it safe.

Link to one of the discussions on regulating battalions:

TMP link

"Troops outside this distance might get up to all sorts of nonsense (or do nothing in particular) because they can't receive your orders.

Not true. In the ancient and medieval eras the whole idea of specific command control is unrealistric. The problem was never getting troops to do something – in fact the opposite – it was more often stopping them (especially in pursuit). The vast majority of actions in this time frame were "go get them". Armies faced up to one another and fought. Once your immediate opponents were defeated it very much depended on the skill (or whatever) of the units commander whether he could stop his men "uncontrollably" pursuing – easier if they had been ordered to defend a position. All these rulesets with elaborate command control rules are wholly unrealistic of most ancient etc battles. Maybe disciplined professional armnies like Romans but hardly anyone else.

+1 to Mikes post and the provided link.

I think it was all pretty much said on that particular thread.

I must be getting older and wiser – well older anyway.

As I'm not going to beat my head on the command radius v regulating wall this time round, other than to say:

Command Radius simple/simplistic.

Regulating simple/historic

Are command radii artificial? Yes.
Are they unhelpful? No.

I would say this, wouldn't I, but …

I'm going to cite the example of my "Bloody Big Battles!" rules. Of course there are other ways of representing C&C problems, which may be better than BBB in important respects. But BBB does manage to bring out the very different natures of opposing armies by a combination of:

- not representing all generals on the table, only the better ones;
- simple 6" CR for those generals that do get represented;
- all it does is give a +1 on units' movement rolls, making them more likely to do what the player wants;
- particularly ponderous armies or units get hit with a -1 modifier for being 'Passive', and ones which are 'Fragile' get a -1 when already Disrupted.

These factors seem to give the right feel for agile Prussians against French under rabbit-in-headlights Bazaine in 1870; or clumsy Crimean War Russians against more vigorously commanded Allies; or aggressive Confederates against apprehensive Yankees at The Wilderness; etc etc etc. The effect in game terms is that players have to think carefully about where to put their generals, i.e., where to direct their command attention / effort / focus; and it makes them think twice about dispersing their troops too widely across the table (though at BBB scale in a historical scenario this is often inevitable).

So don't write off CR just because it is 'artificial'. It can still be a very helpful mechanism.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
link
bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk

Personally I am not keen on any rule feature that doesn't lend itself to being described in real terms. This is why I don't like "stands"; no contemporary participant mentions them.

As Narratio points out there are other ways to achieve the same thing. As 1ngram points out the command challenge was often stopping units doing the wrong thing. For me this latter is the main problem with command radii. Looking at the Union Brigade at Waterloo, or Ompteda's battalions likewise, they were within Uxbridge's and the Prince of Range's command radius all right, and where did it get them?

In one form or another stated many times above they are helpful

Yes, command radii are artificial. So are measured movements, turns, measured ranges, dice, rigidly based figures, the God's eye view of the table, telepathic commanders, and so much more about war games.

All of these are mechanisms to model battle. Some friction occurs in a battle preventing the unfolding of events precisely as the commanders desire. Command radii are just one tool to model a portion of that friction.

I think being in command radius of a higher level general does not mean a lower level commander is immune to using his "initiative" and doing something that in hindsight might be wrong. "stopping" a unit from doing something might fall under a "discipline" check. This of course adds complexity in the name of addressing "realism". I don't favor it.

I'm going to cite the example of my "Bloody Big Battles!" rules. Of course there are other ways of representing C&C problems.

Chris: Yes, but that is a grand tactical set of rules, so army and corps commanders are all that are really represented…If division or lower, CRs don't work.

Yes, command radii are artificial. So are measured movements, turns, measured ranges, dice, rigidly based figures, the God's eye view of the table, telepathic commanders, and so much more about war games.

Dave: Well, everything about a wargame is artificial. However, the question is whether command radii function in a way that mimics the methods, challenges and dynamics of command and moving troops. for division and brigade movement, they don't at all. Command radii don't capture those things at all, particularly the actual command distances, the silliness of being in and out of command at different distances, the benefits of being in command and what players have to do to 'stay in command.'

None of it has anything, and I mean anything to do with command control in 19th century combat at those levels. Only some of command radius dynamics CAN represent corps and army command issues, depending on the actual rules.

I think we have gotten to the stage where we are parsing levels of abstraction and specifics of what is being represented. The very nature of an abstraction (from Latin meaning to pull away from) means- to me- we are representing many details and specifics with a few items. How many of those details you sublimate to the few is up to your level of interest in details and period flavor. I think we could all give a list of things that could/did happen in history that had some impact on the outcome of a battle. I do not think any of us want to include all of them in our rules- hence the need to corral them into an abstraction. The trick of course is to keep some that still give you period flavor and agency to affect the game, otherwise we are playing chess or just flipping a coin to determine who won Waterloo. Where your preference on that sliding scale is is what makes this hobby so interesting.

In my homebrew tactical WW2 game command radius is defined as 100 yards and line of sight from the platoon cdr or 15 yards from another figure in the same platoon who is in command, or if you have a radio, line of sight of the platoon cdr. This is a simple (generous) calculation of the range a platoon cdr can give intelligent orders either shouting, visual or through runners.
A subunit that is out of command has two options: Move in a straight line towards the platoon cdr or sit still. The results aren't complicated and don't cover every circumstance but generally present the options a grunt had in the situation where they can't see their boss. A third possibility would be return to the start line but that would only happen if the platoon suffered a morale failure.

Not Napoleonics but another example.

Command and Control is a process- NOT a radius. The radius does not even come close to simulating the C2 process. The process consists of 5 parts:

The Commanding Element
The Downward flow of communication
The Commanded element
The Upward flow of communication
Friction on all elements

Also, time to decide a course of action, who to order, the documenting of the order, the sending of the order, the receipt of the order, the time to formulate a plan to enact the received order, etc. Time and distance seems to always be out of whack in command radius games. Even in todays world with satellite communications, it may take many hours or even days before a force can be sent packing on a different mission.

There are some works on the internet that explains and compare systems thru the ages. Makes one wonder why we continue to see new rules published that are mainly rehash of the same-o-same-o. No real new innovations.

Command and control does not have to be involved, just believeable that it is a modelling of the real process.

well I think the radius is merely representing the distance that the process can be impressed upon in a given time frame. In the Horse and Musket period that process was communicated via a man on a horse.

I wrote up some rules last summer for creating an on-table, analog computer that did mostly eliminate the helicopter effect of war-games, although it did have command radii too. I'd been reading Longstreet's memoir and wanted to capture the uncertainty of units marching to the battlefield, and also put some of the uncertainty of pre-battlefield maneuvers into a game. Combat was a complete and total second thought in these rules- it was really about controlling time and knowledge.

It worked, sort of. I mean, it did work, but it was slightly complicated.

Basically, the players would create a list of way points, and a mission in plain language for each corps or similar command. Each turn the players would draw a counter from a bag, which would indicate with green, yellow or red whether or not the unit had acted meaningfully in that turn towards the furtherance of its mission (each turn being five, ten, or fifteen minutes, depending on what time-hack was used). These were placed face-down without looking next to the corps commander, who could be miles away from the army general. After a number of turns based on how far the army general was from the corps commander these time-chits would stack up, and finally be flipped, and the programmed mission played through in order, way-point-to-way-point- along with enemy units that were in the same sector.

Since time was tracked as a constant across the board (meaning each unit of both sides got a time chit in each turn) the players could determine, by alternating movement amongst the different units of both sides (meaning, by resolving the actions of each side within each discrete time block), if one corps would seize a bridge before an enemy unit arrived, just how many troops he would get across before the enemy attacked, and how many turns of combat they would then fight. Because it could take quite awhile for information to get back to the army general, this would allow entire battles to take place between far-flung corps without the generals knowing what was happening. So, using the computer you might actually come up with a situation like Jena-Auserstadt, for example.

The downside of the analog computer was that it took a bit of practice to get the hang of it, and also, because both generals could trip the resolution of time points, it only partially corrected for helicopter view- the command radii for both generals would overlap at some points, but not in others. That said, I haven't seen any other war-games that do something like it. I was going to write an entire war-game based on it, but then I started gad school and all that went out the window for a bit. Now, I'm somewhat tempted to bring it back. If I do, I'll post the chits on my blog with my eBase project, so anyone who wants them can download them. Those, and some order sheets that people can write the orders and waypoints onto.

I think radii are artificial and helpful.

Well I think the radius is merely representing the distance that the process can be impressed upon in a given time frame. In the Horse and Musket period that process was communicated via a man on a horse.

daler:
That can be true of corps or army commanders [if they aren't Wellington] but for division command and below, that was NOT the main method of command and control. Even then, the restrictions that many games make on the distances of command control have no relationship to how fast or far a man on a horse could go in a turn.

For instance, Fire and Fury has a command radius of 18". That is 900 yards. The designer was going for line-of-sight. A man on a horse could traverse that 900 yards many, many times in the half-hour turn. Another interesting thing about the F&F command radius is that it was not included to represent the ACW command and control system but all the support a commander could provide OUTSIDE the normal chain of command, because of his vantage point. That is why there is no penalty for being 'out of command' and a line of sight restriction.

I think radii are artificial and helpful.

vtsaogames:

All aspects of any wargame are artificial, so that isn't saying much of anything, like saying swords are metal.

As for "helpful", what does that mean? It's like saying that fire combat is artificial and helpful.

It either means that the CR mechanic [which can vary widely from rule set to rules set] does what the designer wanted…in game play and/or in representing some dynamic in battle.

Command radius isn't as artificial as you might believe. When you deploy out your force, typically you will have units placed side by side on the line with reserve behind (or defense in depth, but I digress).
A company is deployed alongside B company. The CO's have gone over the battle plan and know this. When the battle starts and chaos begins, if 2nd platoon decides to go rogue and leave the predetermined assignment zone (command radius), the company next over will recognize them as hostiles (because A company isn't supposed to be there) and now you have a messy friendly fire incident that a commander has to explain.

Command radius is important so that all the boots on the ground know where their guys are supposed to be and where they are not supposed to be. Now, it can be argued on symmantics, but if you look at any military deployments you will see each combat unit contained within a geographic area, regardless of whether they are attavking or defending. They only start mixing up when command structure starts falling apart (usually when the battle starts to go badly).

I'll also note that many games rely on unit strength to test morale. As soon as you eliminate command radius and have teams crossing over, you lose track of who lost what and when to test morale. Why number every base & create a paper roster? Command radius takes care of that.

In PBI we use a system where the further you are from your commander the less likely you are to activate. Intervening terrain also adds a penalty. You can still fail the roll even if the commander is adjacent, but it is very much more unlikely. You can still do something if not activated and troops will reacte to enemy if they move in close or start shooting. Seems to work well.

Command Radii are useful but more important is to limit the number of individual orders that can be given. One mass order to get a unit moving in a certain direction is much easier than issuing individual instructions to each component to move in often rather complex paths.

In general most games need more CC limitations not less.

Thomas J. Thomas
Fame and Glory Games

Command radius isn't as artificial as you might believe. When you deploy out your force, typically you will have units placed side by side on the line with reserve behind (or defense in depth, but I digress).
A company is deployed alongside B company. The CO's have gone over the battle plan and know this. When the battle starts and chaos begins, if 2nd platoon decides to go rogue and leave the predetermined assignment zone (command radius), the company next over will recognize them as hostiles (because A company isn't supposed to be there) and now you have a messy friendly fire incident that a commander has to explain.

Wizbangs: I am assuming you are talking about 20th Century conflicts, though I am not sure how CRs mimic this?

Command Radii are useful but more important is to limit the number of individual orders that can be given. One mass order to get a unit moving in a certain direction is much easier than issuing individual instructions to each component to move in often rather complex paths.

Thomas: 18th and 19th Century CR mechanics don't mimic how, why or where such 'mass orders' occurred and brigade and division leaders seldom if ever issued individual components/battalions within their command. Command communication and control didn't work that way.

In general most games need more CC limitations not less.

I agree with you there, however what is the point of attempting to create limitations of any kind [supposedly in an attempt to better model reality] if the limitations imposed have nothing to do with past command methods…i.e. reality and skew play in patently unrealistic ways?

McLaddie: yes, I am referring to WW2 and later. Not knowledgeable enough to comment on the earlier periods.

Would it be helpful to talk about the OODA loop? (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act.)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

It is surely a fact that this is in part a function of the distance between a commander and his units.

"Observe" is both direct – what the commander can see himself from his vantage point – and indirect, in the form of reports from his subordinates. The further away a unit is, the harder it is for him to see what it is doing, and the longer it takes for its reports to reach him.

"Act", as plenty of earlier responses have noted, is again going to take longer to implement when units are further away.

Those two are obvious. But less obviously, "Orient" and "Decide" may also be affected. When a commander cannot see what all his troops are doing, and when their reports are infrequent and delayed, that introduces uncertainty into his assessment of the situation. Uncertainty may mean the commander himself takes longer to get oriented, and especially, to decide what to do, because of having an incomplete picture and consequent doubt over what is the right thing to do. CR is not just a simple function of the distance a single dispatch rider can cover in the time represented by a given game-turn.

Does greater distance from the commander therefore in general make it less likely that (a) a unit will be given an appropriate order and (b) receive and act on it in a timely manner? Indisputably yes.

What actions your rules allow his units to take, and therefore what decisions your rules allow him to make – eg, whether regulating battalions make some decisions automatic and others impermissible – these are to some degree a separate matter.

The point is that CR _may_ be a helpful tool to reflect the effect of distance on the OODA loop, and to reward historically sensible actions and punish unwise ones. Whether and how exactly you use that tool, and how it integrates with your other rule mechanisms is up to you.

Anyway, forwardmarchstudios, cool discussion, thank you. I like your blog and I like what you're trying to do and I like your approach too.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
link
bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk

Chris, good summation. It cuts through the sophistry and singular exceptions that people forward on the subject.

the basic command radius of a battalion commander was the battalion – nothing artificial about that.

the command radius of a regiment was that of the regimental commander.

the command radius of a brigade – was that of a brigade commander.

the command radius of a divisional commander was a division.

the command radius of a coprs commander was a corps.

While a battalion commander could at least in theory command by voice his battalion – it would be different for the rest.

The command radius would also depend on the tactics employed.

On a division employed in line and advancing – in my view – the command could be done only by a regulating battalion.

In case the division commander was there – he could direct it directly.

At more complex arrangements – two brigades froming two lines of battle it would depend how they do it.

Would they do it accolée – then each regiment would have one battalion in the first and one battalion in the second line – the regimental commander could place himself where he deems convinient according to tactical situations – the same for the brigade commander, by that a flexible and fast structure of command could be established.

On the other hand, in case the brigades are stacked, as one brigade of two regiments in the front line, you are down to regulation battalion again – and there will be clash of interest between brigade commander of first line and brigade commander of second line – then the divisional commander had to be asked and interfer.

Command and control was a pillar of leading an army. In my view the removal of a battalion, regimental, brigade commander due to being a casualty must really have created havoc and slow down all maneouvres, which is often underestimated in my opinion.

Think of a captain, all of a sudden in control of a full battalion, not even having a horse?

It is just plain silly to totally ignore some sort of command radius. Let us say that the command level is a division with a divisional general. He has several brigades deployed under his command. He gets an order from a higher command or makes a decision to do something different then just staying still- lets say it is to advance on a certain enemy and position, in a certain method and timing. Duh, the divisional general has to know the location of his sub-units and what they have in front of them. (Is there a pond or a cliff in front of them? He has to be close enough to them to understand what they can do). Duh, he does have to write or verbally issue orders. Duh, those orders have to be carried to the brigade generals. Duh, the brigade generals have to understand the orders and issue orders to the battalions.

Each one of these actions takes time. The divisional general has to see or know the sub-unit's situation (which involves how far he is from them- distance can be expressed as a radius). Someone has to physically carry the order to the lower level brigade. (this travel takes time, which is related to the distance traveled- which can be expressed as a radius).

It seems to me that applying a command radius and a limited set of order types is a valid way to represent much of the reality. How fast and completely orders are enacted can be modeled without too much trouble with a few rules and die rolls. Better generals, staffs and leadership should have plus factors on enacting. Units out of radius might cause the division to have to wait a turn to all act at the same time, OR might act with a delay, OR might act with a slight delay if issued prior regulating-unit type orders.

Observe-Orient-Decide-Act.

Chris:
This isn't a vanilla process. It was different for different scales, in what needs to be seen, how they orient, their set of possible decisions and how quickly they could act.

The division commander has a different kind of cycle than a Corps commander or a brigade commander [at least during the 18th and 19th Centuries, but I would imagine also for later wars.]

1968billsfan:

What historical period are we talking about here?

The divisional general has to see or know the sub-unit's situation (which involves how far he is from them- distance can be expressed as a radius). Someone has to physically carry the order to the lower level brigade. (this travel takes time, which is related to the distance traveled- which can be expressed as a radius).

This is not the way it worked in most cases--18th and 19th Centuries.

Duh, the divisional general has to know the location of his sub-units and what they have in front of them. (Is there a pond or a cliff in front of them? He has to be close enough to them to understand what they can do). Duh, he does have to write or verbally issue orders. Duh, those orders have to be carried to the brigade generals. Duh, the brigade generals have to understand the orders and issue orders to the battalions.

This isn't how it worked under normal circumstances. .

Oh, sure, Bill, I don't disagree. But the OP didn't specify a size of battle, and it was posted across Ancients, Napoleonics and WWII discussion boards. That makes it a very broad question. I was trying to offer a very broad answer, that in basic principle, yes, CRs can be helpful.

Obviously the degree to which they are helpful vs redundant or even counter-productive (wrong tool for the specific job) will depend on the specific context.

Chris

I was trying to offer a very broad answer, that in basic principle, yes, CRs can be helpful.

Obviously the degree to which they are helpful vs redundant or even counter-productive (wrong tool for the specific job) will depend on the specific context.

Chris: As a broad answer, it was terrific, and as one, identified where things can be different for those various historical periods. I agree. It all depends on the specific context, the mechanics and what they are trying to represent.

A lot of this also comes down to what you are trying to do:

Are we simulation a real-life process specifically with a game mechanic?

Are we creating a game mechanic that produces the right result in the end?

The answers may differ based on what you want to do.

Regarding OP's intent, I posted across a bunch of periods because I wanted to see what players outside my usual period think about the topic, or if maybe some game in another period I'm not into has a completely different way of dealing with command.

Having just played my first FPGA game in quite awhile, I can say that I have new respect for the elegant simplicity of the command radius mechanic, notwithstanding its somewhat artificial nature.

Is it artificial? Probably.

Is it unhelpful? No, and in fact the opposite is true. Although, I did find that units often went out of command anyway because of the 6" rule, which causes units to potentially launch attacks when within a certain distance of enemy troops. Maybe I was missing something? Any FPGA players in here?

If anything, I'm now interesting in writing an even simpler set of rules for army level games.

Someone above said that the command radius of a leader is the area covered by the command, and although it's a tautology, I think it's a very good point. I was thinking this while I was playing. Maybe we should give commanders the benefit of the doubt on deployments and a very generous command radius, but add stiff tactical penalties for isolated and unsupported units; a carrot and stick approach to the issue. I think this would result in the greatest ease of game play.

If a set of rules features turn lengths on the order of a half-hour, the physical distance between a commander and his sub-units is perhaps not the dominant factor in the (non-electronic) command and control calculus. A courier on foot unimpeded by difficult terrain or heavy fire would be able to traverse a mile in a half-hour; a mounted courier could surely traverse 2x-3x that distance in a similar amount of time. The important issue (IMO at least) is whether the commander can actually see his sub-units; if not, then his sense of the location of an invisible sub-unit can range from pretty good guess to no clue at all. I do not argue that an unseen sub-unit is to be considered totally beyond a commander's control, but I do consider that a penalty should be assessed if attempting to communicate with it. If the likelihood of passing an order or communication to a visibly sub-unit is "X", perhaps a likelihood of "X/2" or "X/3" should be considered if the subject sub-unit is out of sight.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

B

Regardless for more modern battles, Command Radii should still be in any rules for sake of some sort of realism. Lower level units, e.g. Squad & Platoon radios don't have the range as the more powerful radios at higher levels. E.g. Bn, Bde, Rgt, etc.

However, I've been in situations where a Squad/Plt radio could contact the Bn or Bde by just switching the freqs. But that has a much to do with the distances between units as anything else.

So I think the rules should reflect that. For 6mm, we used ranges something like:

Squad/Plt = 6-10mm
Co = 30cms
Bn = 60cms
Bde/Rgt = 90cms

E.g. A Bn HQ can command any unit within 60cms, etc.