"Activations in Chain of Command." Topic

I have a theory on how to maximise the number of units activated by the throw of the dice in Chain of Command. Tell me if you think it works.
Most forces have a platoon HQ of one team and a senior leader. And 3 squads of 2 teams and a junior leader.
Using Command Initiatives, a leader can either activate other squads/teams or extend the actions of the squad/team they are with.
So in your force you roll dice to either get a natural 4 or a combination of dice that will make a 4. So you activate your senior leader, who activates a squad within distance. which includes a junior leader who can make a further 2 activation's, one of which is another squad with a junior leader, so that can be the same and than that squad can do the same.
So thats 3 squads activated, 3 command initiatives used and 6 command initiatives left over (2 from the senior leader and 4 from the junior leaders). Am I correct? If so, if you keep size of your force down to 9 units or less, you should always have the opportunity to activate all your units.

Junior leaders can only activate their own squad and all units only get to activate once.

I'm not fully understanding what you are saying but it sounds like you are mixed up a bit.

No. I will have to look, but there are many times not all of your sections can activate, especially teams and vehicles. I don't think leaders can activate other leaders.

The key is that the SL activates a unit (squad/team), but does NOT activate the JL to use his 2 CIs. A JL can only use his CIs if he is activated with a "3".

Also JLs do NOT a activate other JLs, squads, or teams. They can only influence their own squad and teams of their squad.

Why are you suggesting a fix to a problem that ONLY YOU think is a problem? You haven't even played a real game of Chain of Command. CoC was released 5 years ago and in all that time nobody of the many, many actual people who use the rules has suggested a need for a change like that. As a matter of fact no always being able to activate everything you have on the table is one of the draws of the game.

I feel that it just shows how arrogant you really are that you would suggest a "fix" to a game that you have never played and don't understand.

Obviously you learned nothing from the last thread.

Why are you suggesting a fix to a problem that ONLY YOU think is a problem?

This is actually a way to game the CoC rules.. Maximum effect out of minimum roll.

I feel that it just shows how arrogant you really are that you would suggest a "fix" to a game that you have never played and don't understand.

Feel free to think anything you like.

The key is that the SL activates a unit (squad/team), but does NOT activate the JL to use his 2 CIs. A JL can only use his CIs if he is activated with a "3".

And that is the key, does a Command Initiative activating a squad which includes a leader, include activating the leader as well?

Also JLs do NOT a activate other JLs, squads, or teams. They can only influence their own squad and teams of their squad.

Damn you are right. p.18 Junior Leaders can only activate and influence their own men. Oh well it was an idea.

I think you've misunderstood the rules.
A senior leader can activate a squad – not another leader.
There is no 'cascade' of activation; if there were you could just activate everything that way.

And concentrating your troops like that is asking for a mortar barrage. Even if it were allowed.

"This is actually a way to game the CoC rules.. Maximum effect out of minimum roll."

…..which goes entirely against the TFL ethos of "Play the Period not the Rules".

Attempting to insert cheese/beardyness into the rules calls for a pointy stick IMO.

What a bizarre post!

One thing to ask here. I think a Senior Leader could activate a squad, which would include the junior leader, then the junior leader could use his command initiative (utilizing another command die) to do actions that are not considered an activation (4.5.3) e.g. remove 2 points of shock.

Does that sound right?

Senior leaders may only activate squads\sections that he is attached to or in his command range. He may not activate other leaders. So SL can activate a jl's squad\section and get them to do something by him using a CI. JL can only activate their squad\section they are with.

VVV, please try an infantry-based game. I'd recommend the 'probe' scenario as one requiring movement rather than a straight attack/defend (though they work too). Use a bog-standard British and German platoon from 1944 with a limited amount of support, just to get the basics down.
Having tried it, you may wish to make changes. But try it as written first.

There can be issues with the command dice, but more often they are about getting too many activations rather than too few. It doesn't happen often, but rolling double 6s a couple of times to string maybe three phases together at once can be a real game changer. Hasn't happened enough in my experience for me to want to tinker with it, but there are several solutions suggested on the forum..

If you knit your daisy chains all the way round, Does it make a necklace?

@advocate, you need to understand that vvv reply doesn't think he needs to play CoC to understand the game. If you were to read the previous thread on the differences between BA and CoC yo could see that he feels that having read the rules he can now understand them in all their intricacies better than those that play the game.

Many posters have tried to counter his misconceptions and explain to him how the system really works in great detail. Unfortunately he seems to be either unwilling or unable to understand those explanations and stubbornly denies that they are true even though he has never really played the game as it is intended to be played.

"Also JLs do NOT a activate other JLs, squads, or teams. They can only influence their own squad and teams of their squad."

Good God!!!!

You don't mean to say that you are restricted to follow the chain of Command in COC????. Who on earth would have thought that COC would have something about the chain of command in it. I mean, I bet no one has spotted that one before…and no one will have seen that one coming!

I always thought that Bolt Action was a nippy name about how you shut gates in combat, but I may need to think more closely on that one.

KevanG – I know, right? Oh! The humanity!!!!!

Private Snafu:
Yes, that is allowed, but it would indeed require 2 command die (or combinations) of a 3 and a four.

Thanks Keith. I thought so. We've played it that way all along, but this odd topic made me think twice if that was correct.

To clarify, everyone baffled by OP's idea of how SL activation works is probably correct. SL cannot activate leaders, but rather Sections and Teams. Each of his Command Initiative points essentially act as a command die roll of 1 or 2, not 3, which would activate a JL.
VVV, if you're dead set on judging rules after a read-through, please read said rules completely.
In this case, 4.5.2 would have answered all of your questions, and rendered your confusion cleared.

What we have here is a perfect case of"friction ".
We have all done it, read a set of rules a few times, maybe even played them once or twice, and completely missed a crucial rule or interpretation which, once it's pointed out, is totally obvious.
No different to a soldier on the battlefield, but not under any enemy fire misreading a map reference, a fuel gauge, or the hands on his watch.

Wait…..that sort of friction doesn't exist, does it?…VVV said so.

I do not understand the desire to be able to activate everything every phase. The whole point is you must make decisions each phase as to what is most important to do. Its the whole point of the game.

Trav, you are not alone – none of us who actually play CofC understand the point the OP is trying to make, across several threads.

You've just nailed it – the whole point of the game is that the player has to prioritise and make decisions every phase, and make the most of the hand he is dealt (dice he has rolled), minimising the effect of the occasional bumps along the way.

Senior leaders may only activate squads\sections that he is attached to or in his command range. He may not activate other leaders

My view is that when you activate a squad with a junior leader, you activate the J/L as well. Unless anyone knows different.

VVV, if you're dead set on judging rules after a read-through, please read said rules completely.
In this case, 4.5.2 would have answered all of your questions, and rendered your confusion cleared.

Nope still reading it and don't see (see above).

We have all done it, read a set of rules a few times, maybe even played them once or twice, and completely missed a crucial rule or interpretation which, once it's pointed out, is totally obvious.

And what did I miss?
And the reason I ask is that reading the rule on Radio orders, it seemed reasonable that only one radio order could be issued. Happy and pleased to accept that more than one Radio order can be issued.
So when it says you can activate a section and the J/L is in the section, it is reasonable to think the J/L is activated as well.
And the reason for asking the question, is to find out just how many units in CoC you can activate with as few dice as possible. So as to define the best use of Command Dice.

There is no 'cascade' of activation; if there were you could just activate everything that way.

Yep that was and is the plan. Most activations you can get for the fewest dice used. Yep on p.18 it says that J/L can only spend CI on their own squads (as was kindly pointed out). So all we need do now is sort out if the limitations on activating squads using dice, also apply to using CI.

Wait…..that sort of friction doesn't exist, does it?…VVV said so.

What VVV said was that sort of friction does not exist in a single platoon every 2 minutes so its silly to include it in a set of rules. Now I find that a phase in CoC represents a few seconds of real-time, so I will go further, its totally crazy :)

the whole point of the game is that the player has to prioritise and make decisions every phase, and make the most of the hand he is dealt (dice he has rolled), minimising the effect of the occasional bumps along the way.

And the point is, that decision can be defined. If you know the rules that operate.
What we are now going to sort out is what a S/L can do. If a S/L can only activate the troops in a section then he is best not doing it, if he has any 3's (or equivalent) handy, the J/L will do a better job of it.
And we know that a squad/leader can only be activated once in a phase (p.17)
We also know that S/L cannot activate attached vehicles, so they will need dice.
And incidentally by knowing what the leaders in a force can do, it helps when picking a force. No point having lots of things that cannot be activated by S/L, you are unlikely to get the dice to do it with.

vvv, you say that friction is totally crazy. Can I ask you, as a former Sergeant this. Imagine that you are commanding a platoon. I am a corporal in charge of a section. If you tell me to move with my section to a position sixty metres away and to put down covering fire to allow you to move with another section, would you know precisely when I would open fire, or would you wait for me to start firing before you moved!

I ask because you seem to be saying that you could be absolutely certain how long it will take me to make my move and get my section firing. I, and many others here, are suggesting that you can't know precisely how long it will take me to complete that manoeuvre. The ground may take longer to cross than anticipated. There may be obstacles that haven't been seen until we get to them. When we do get there the gimpy may have a stoppage which will take a few moments to sort out.

I'm just wondering if you'd accept that all of the above counts as very normal battlefield friction which happens all of that time and that's what Clausewitz is referring to when he says that "Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult". Or is Clausewitz simply wrong?

If you have two senior leaders and get the dice to make two 4's you could activate your entire force. Have seen it done many times. Three squads, a 2" mortar ad a piat in the same phase with two 4's. Of course to do this you would have to sacrifice some other options like removing shock and such.

vvv, you say that friction is totally crazy. Can I ask you, as a former Sergeant this. Imagine that you are commanding a platoon. I am a corporal in charge of a section. If you tell me to move with my section to a position sixty metres away and to put down covering fire to allow you to move with another section, would you know precisely when I would open fire, or would you wait for me to start firing before you moved!

I would wait for you to start firing first. But of course that would be my choice, nothing to do with luck.
Now I could see/hear what you were doing but lets assume you were out of sight/further away. We could agree a time that I would start my advance (remembering this is WW2 with little radio communication), or you could signal with a flare when you are ready.
If no one could plan on anything happening because of luck, then there would be no point making plans. The point of course that I have been making.
Too Fat Lardies place more importance on their idea of 'friction' than they do on reality. And to do it every phase, absurd. They have a random events table in CoC, that should be enough to keep anyone who wants some 'luck' in their game.
Random movement makes sense if you accept random time but that creates its own problems. If the time for movement is random, then the time for shooting is as well but troops in CoC fire at a standard rate (if they get to fire at all of course). So time for movement random, time for shooting, standard. It just does not make any sense.

I'm just wondering if you'd accept that all of the above counts as very normal battlefield friction which happens all of that time and that's what Clausewitz is referring to when he says that "Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult". Or is Clausewitz simply wrong?

We had that one before and I am happy to repeat my answer then

Clausewitz is right. You are not going to function as well; wearing the the clothes that you have been in for several days, eating lousy food (although in the British army it can be good, I recommend the cooking at Shorncliffe), sleeping on the ground and no TV. Compared to living in your nice comfortable house.
But thats simple, you take being a soldier as the baseline for your soldiers, not living in a comfy house.

For some reason Too Fat Lardies want to make luck the dominant feature of their games. Certainly there are people who love it and support it to the hilt. Fair enough there is a market for it, so meet the needs of the customers and do it.
But I prefer to base my rules on manuals and historical records.

If you have two senior leaders and get the dice to make two 4's you could activate your entire force.

True but some forces only have one senior leader, so that would be my assumed force, one S/L plus 3 squads with J/L.
Thats why knowing if the S/L activates both the section and its leader when he uses a CI point. If the J/L gets to use his 2 CI then the section/teams can do more than with a single CI.
Then if you say that the J/L is not activated by the S/L, then its better to use a 3 to activate the J/L as they do more than a single CI. So the motto seems to be, activate the J/L if you can and use the S/L to activate, when you cannot. I of course was hoping to create a wave of activation's that would get everything activated.

VVV,

But I prefer to base my rules on manuals and historical records.

I'm sure at one point, I did ask for you to produce some historical evidence to support your views?

I have no problem with you holding a certain POV, that's your choice and I respect that. But if either of us is going to persuade others as to the validity of our POV, it's generally best to support that with historical evidence, it always helps.

DB

P.S. Add to your base line of soldiering, not just living outdoors, as you say, anyone can do that, but add in sleep deprivation and illness of various sorts – then you have friction as the baseline.

P.P.S. Oddly enough I've also been wargaming for exactly 47 years and eaten food provided by the British Army, though I'm not sure I would ever describe it as good, except for the mess at H.A.C., that was pretty good!

"And what did I miss?"
Well, the point.
Obviously.

I'm sure at one point, I did ask for you to produce some historical evidence to support your views?

And you got them. Quotes from MacDonalds Company Commander, without enemy action, troops following the plan and doing what they are told.

P.S. Add to your base line of soldiering, not just living outdoors, as you say, anyone can do that, but add in sleep deprivation and illness of various sorts – then you have friction as the baseline.

No that becomes your norm, not friction. The standard condition of the soldier.

P.P.S. Oddly enough I've also been wargaming for exactly 47 years and eaten food provided by the British Army, though I'm not sure I would ever describe it as good, except for the mess at H.A.C., that was pretty good!

Well Shorncliffe was providing good grub back in the day.

VVV,

That's right, McDonalds was just the one piece of evidence, perhaps a few more might assist further?

No that becomes your norm, not friction. The standard condition of the soldier.

Yes, that's right a knackered soldier functions poorly and makes numerous mini-mistakes, all of which contribute to friction, of some kind or another.

Ever tried reading a map with no sleep for 2 or more days?
Ever nodded off at a briefing because you'd had no proper sleep for a week?
Ever given a poor briefing to your command for the same reason?
Ever forgotten a basic piece of equipment for that same reason?

Ever carried out the unload procedure and wondered why rounds keep flying out when you clear the mechanism a couple of times? The reason they tell you in training that this will happen is because they know every soldier, despite his training, (though I suspect you'll be different) will forget the correct unload drill at some point.

That is friction at a low level, it all builds up to frustrate the overall plan….at least that's what more than one lecture was aimed at during my courses within the military….so do I now feed back to the instructors that they are simply wrong and blindly following the latest new trendy theory?

DB

I of course was hoping to create a wave of activation's that would get everything activated.

Nope, no wave of activations. That's not how CoC works.

Why are you so set on always being able to activate all of your units?

"But I prefer to base my rules on manuals and historical records."

These would be the same manuals and records that Rich Clarke has read in order to write his rules, presumably? Did you also read a lot of them in their original (non-English) languages like he did?

Are these same manuals and historical records what led you to your infamous "Tiger hunt" scenario? A scenario with absolutely no historical basis whatsoever, something which never happened outside of a Hollywood scriptwriters imagination, something which bears only a passing and popularised resemblance to any tactical reality?

".so do I now feed back to the instructors that they are simply wrong and blindly following the latest new trendy theory?"

"Vom Krieg"….first published in 1832.

It's not that new, Dave.

My view is that when you activate a squad with a junior leader, you activate the J/L as well. Unless anyone knows different.

If you look again in the list of what the Leader the SL can activate with his command points a JL is not listed therefore he can't be activated by the SL.

And the reason I ask is that reading the rule on Radio orders, it seemed reasonable that only one radio order could be issued. Happy and pleased to accept that more than one Radio order can be issued.

Apparently only to you.

If a S/L can only activate the troops in a section then he is best not doing it, if he has any 3's (or equivalent) handy, the J/L will do a better job of it.

You've almost got it. If you have rolled a 3 and 4 there are several options,
Use the 3 to activate the JL he can then either
Remove 2 shock,
Remove 1 shock and order the squad to fire or move
Order one team to fire and the other team to fire
Order each team to fire at different targets or move to different locations
With the 4 you can activate the SL and can do the same things as the JL if he is within range of any squad from his platoon.
So you could use the SL to order one team to fire the other to move and would have one more point to remove shock or activate another squad within range and activate the JL with the 3 to remove two shock. Or use the JL to order the teams while the SL activates other squads within range and/or remove shock. Lots of options.

Too Fat Lardies place more importance on their idea of 'friction' than they do on reality.

Maybe someday you'll understand that "reality" and "friction" go hand in hand especially in combat.

And you got them. Quotes from MacDonalds Company Commander, without enemy action, troops following the plan and doing what they are told.

Except there was enemy action and they troops had to be ordered to stop running as they were moving too fast because they were worried they were going to get shot at.

If you look again in the list of what the Leader the SL can activate with his command points a JL is not listed therefore he can't be activated by the SL.

But the JL is part of the squad, so when the squad is activated, so is the JL……
Now in the bit on what you can do with the rolled dice, it separates the squad and the JL, but not in what you can do with CI points.
So has it been agreed amongst CoC players that you do not activate the JL when you activate the squad.
Which of course is and was the point of the question.

Except there was enemy action and they troops had to be ordered to stop running as they were moving too fast because they were worried they were going to get shot at.

Rubbish, they started moving quickly because they were ordered to, they slowed, again because they were ordered to. Read the quote. You imagine stuff.

Captain Calhoun sent his 2d Platoon down the road. I assembled my CP group and the 3d Platoon and waited until the F Company men had gone two hundred yards. I signalled "Forward" and we started toward the objective on the run, a single column following the ditch on either side of the road. The pace was too fast, and I slowed to a fast walk.

"But the JL is part of the squad, so when the squad is activated, so is the JL……
Now in the bit on what you can do with the rolled dice, it separates the squad and the JL, but not in what you can do with CI points.
So has it been agreed amongst CoC players that you do not activate the JL when you activate the squad. "

As usual, you have it completely arse about face.
It hasn't " been agreed amongst CoC players" it's in black and white, in the rules.

Page 17
"On a Command Dice roll of 2, a Section or Squad may be activated. An attached Leader may accompany them if they move or fire if they fire, but may not use his Command Initiative in this Phase.
On a Command Dice roll of 3, a Junior Leader may be activated. He may immediately use his Command Initiatives to command any of his men in his command range"

If you actually read the rules before making your assumptions, or (heaven forbid!) had actually played a meaningful game you might understand how they work. However, I have my doubts.

That's right, McDonalds was just the one piece of evidence, perhaps a few more might assist further?

Did you read the Rommel one?
But as yet we have zip, zero, nada from the side that thinks that random events happen every few seconds of real time.

… random events happen every few seconds of real time.

See my other post about how that's not actually what's happening, nor what the rules are modeling.

VVV,

Ok, to avoid your rather obvious debating tactics of avoiding addressing issues you cannot or prefer not to answer, please just address this one issue?

If you are correct then why do all the military lectures on the matter I've ever attended agree with Mr R. Clarke that friction is a battlefield constant and therefore disagree with Mr J. Taylor?

DB

Rubbish, they started moving quickly because they were ordered to, they slowed, again because they were ordered to. Read the quote. You imagine stuff.

I'm not imagining things, your trying to take the account out of context by ignoring what happen immediately before the part you quoted a disingenuous thing to do in an honest discussion, but of course your not interested in an honest discussion.
I read you Rommel quotes. The first one had nothing to do with what is posted here, Don't know why you posted it. The second quote funny enough doesn't support anything you've said. As a matter of fact is supports what everybody else is trying to get you to understand.

Here is my reply,

Ok so you've invoked Rommel's "Infanterie Greift An" to supposedly support your claim that Friction is not significant at the platoon level. Well that makes me wonder if you have actually read the book. Having just finish reading it for the third time recently I can say Rommel didn't believe that friction was always present on the battlefield, he KNEW that it existed constantly at ALL levels in battle.

Here are some examples;

"At the upper edge of these woods, we ran into a wire entanglement the like of which we had never seen. It was more than a hundred yards wide and stretched out to the flanks as far as the eye could see."

After checking out the barrier he noticed some of his men on the other side of the obstacle.

"I tried to move down the narrow path that lead through the wire, but enemy fire from the left forced me to hit the dirt. ….ricochets rang all around me as I crawled through the positions on all fours. I ordered the company to follow me in single file, but the commander of my leading platoon lost his nerve and did nothing, and the rest of the company imitated him and lay down behind the wire. Shouting and waving at them proved useless."

Hum, sounds like a lot of friction there and look a unit didn't activate that phase. He goes on,

"I found another passage through the obstacle ad crept back to the company where I informed my first platoon leader that he could either obey my orders or be shot on the spot"

Oh no! Somebody not doing exactly as he was ordered. Maybe that's not as unrealistic as you think. Back on the enemy side of the wire,

"Meanwhile the troop were trying to make an impression on the frozen ground with their spades, but it was only by using the few available and crowbars that we made any progress."

Oops nobody thought to bring heavier digging tools. More friction.

Rommel in his "Observations" at the end of the account He make these comments on why the attack failed,

"With three battalions in line, inadequate reserves were available. Shortages in small-arms ammunition and hand grenades increased our troubles in the defense…"

"Several things happened simultaneously to render our situation most critical; First, the French sized the blockhouse on the extreme right; second, we received the battalion order to withdraw third, we were short of ammunition; and finally, out way back through the wire was swept by enemy fire."

"In making our hasty preparations for the attack, we gave no thought to heavy entrenching tools."

Looks to me like Rommel encountered, and wrote about lots of the friction he had to deal with at low levels during WWI. An if that isn't enough for you I can list several more accounts from his book.

I'm not imagining things, your trying to take the account out of context by ignoring what happen immediately before the part you quoted a disingenuous thing to do in an honest discussion, but of course your not interested in an honest discussion.

I posted the entire relevant section. Thats honesty. You post anything you like to show where you think I got it wrong. Life is indeed that simple. You just have to prove what you say, just as I do.
Enemy action and terrain I accept as 'friction' (after all I would be mad not to). Not a believer in your imaginary friction. In CoC represented by rolling dice to decide how many of your units get to do something that phase. Let them all activate is my motto.

If you are correct then why do all the military lectures on the matter I've ever attended agree with Mr R. Clarke that friction is a battlefield constant and therefore disagree with Mr J. Taylor?

Because I have no idea what you are talking about. So could you explain?

Keep up at the back!

VVV,

You are avoiding answering the question yet again, though we are now used to that tactic.

Friction in war is a battlefield constant – that means its well, constant, happening all the time, not as you propose – only occurring due to enemy action or a bit of rough terrain.

If your opinion was anywhere near correct then at least one of these lectures/lecturers/discussions would have supported your opinion.

No one advocated what you are proposing – they all supported Mr Clarke's version of friction.

DB

You are avoiding answering the question yet again, though we are now used to that tactic.

No I am not, you have not said what you are talking about. Until you do, just what do you expect me to say. Comment on something I know nothing about?
By the way remember we are talking about a platoon level action.

No one advocated what you are proposing – they all supported Mr Clarke's version of friction.

Good for them and I will repeat, look up the story of the Emperors New Clothes.

This is turning into a new episode of the Matrix:

Do you want to take Mr TFL Clarke's red pill, in which everything will return to what you understand to be 'normal' in a world where 'friction' exists or VVV's blue pill, and suddenly realise that Clausewitz, Rommel, hundreds of thousands of veterans throughout history and tens of thousands of gamers are wrong and have been suckered into believing something that isn't real?

Must be lonely being infallible and all-knowing

Do you want to take Mr TFL Clarke's red pill

Where all you need do is believe.

Where all you need do is believe.

More like open your eyes.

I posted the entire relevant section. That's honesty.

NO you posted a small part of an account making sure not to post the portion that included the context to try and make it seem to support your version, that is dishonest. I just added the context portion that showed that it in fact did not support your view.

You can claim to be right all you want it just makes you look the fool. But for Everybody who has and who will read this thread the truth is obvious and it isn't you.

Because I have no idea what you are talking about

That's ben obvious this whole thread.

Good for them and I will repeat, look up the story of the Emperors New Clothes.

Is that the little mantra you repeat to yourself when ever everybody doesn't bow down to your vast knowledge? I hope it makes you feel better. It must be frustrating when everybody else doesn't recognize your brilliance.

I notice you ignored my Rommel post. Not surprised though, since you habitually ignore posts that disprove your view of things of which there are so many in this thread.