"Chain of Command - Multiplayer" Topic

Because I like CoC very much, I tried it in a multiplayer version. Unfortunately I did not like the "official multiplayer" rules offered by TooFatLardies.

So I developped a set of personal home rules, and I tested them with 5 full platoons on the field maneuvered by as many players. We had mainly infantry, no vehicles to make things easier.

I submit these rules to the community, if anyone is interested to try them and to write a review. Thanks for reading.

1. The main variation concerned the abandonment of the phase/turn system. Each platoon is activated drawing a random token from a cup (every platoon is associated with its token), and the turn ends when all tokens has been drawn. No more phases.

2. When rolling dice for the platoon activation treat the "6" die as follows: one 6 (the die is lost), two 6s (add one activation token to the next turn poll for the platoon), three 6s (add two tokens), and so on. No matter how many tokens a platoon put into the cup next turn, it will activate just one time, however it increases its options to be activated.

3. Each platoon's status (On Alert!, Tactical Deployment, Overwatch, etc.) lasts for a full platoon turn, i.e. once raised it ceases its effect at the start of the platoon's next activation.

4 Optional. Smokes generated by a platoon (with granades, etc.) lasts as per rule 3 and do not disappear at the end of the turn.

If everyone gets to activate then it kind of becomes BA, in my mind. At that point I guess I'd just play BA with multiple dice bags. I play both, they each have their place.

I'm not sure I understand. When you say you got rid of phases, I assumed you were getting rid of the command dice, which roll per phase. But then I think your 2nd point is about command dice.

Is your main variation just about when a platoon "goes", but when it goes it still uses command dice? So all platoons have a turn, but the leaders and units within a platoon still are subject to the command dice?

What do you feel you gained from this?

andy

We almost always play CoC with multiple player per side and have no problems with the rules as written.

Why didn't you like them?

Doesn't that mean that each player has to wait until his platoon's token is drawn, meaning lots of sitting around waiting whereas when using Big CofC all players on the same side roll command dice and take their turn simultaneously

If everyone gets to activate then it kind of becomes BA, in my mind. At that point I guess I'd just play BA with multiple dice bags. I play both, they each have their place.

Well according to the post, you still roll Command Dice for each platoon. What changes compared to BigCoC, is that each platoon (or what I would like of as a force) is activated when its chit is drawn. Now what we don't know if both sides chits are drawn together or if its one sides chits, then the other sides.
First way helps solve the 'one side does everything, then other side does everything' in normal CoC.
Of course when I was thinking of bigger games of whatever rules, I was thinking of just more troops per player, not having more players.

To: PrivateSnafu
Yes, that may be similar. But I prefer CoC for his strong emphasis on the role of leaders and the subdivision between fire and maneuver.

To: Andy Skinner
No, I do not got rid of command dice, just the subdivision of turns into phases. There is just a single "phase" per turn. That's all.

To: jdginaz
I feel, but it's my personal opinion, that those rules are not really thought for a multiplayer session, but a large two player session.

To: Basha Felika
Yes, it's a bit slower. That's true. Not too much because you cannot do too much in your turn because the reduced number of activation dice, but it is a little bit slower.

To: VVV reply
There is just one chit pool, not two separated one. Yes, if you use more troops and two players original CoC or BigCoC works well, my target was more players and their separated forces.

Thanks all for your comments.

To: VVV reply
There is just one chit pool, not two separated one. Yes, if you use more troops and two players original CoC or BigCoC works well, my target was more players and their separated forces.

OK, so that breaks up 'one side does everything, then the other side does everything'. Makes sense.

I guess I don't understand the problem. We regularly play with up to 6 players with o problem.

OK try this. Your 3 players get to go first, they concentrate all their fire on one of the enemy platoons opposing them. Knock it about so bad that in effect it ceases to be (its just been subjected to the equivalent of 3 rounds of play). Then its 2 platoons vs 3. For modern combat you use the square of the power of combat, so its now 4 vs 9. And it goes downhill from there.
link

@VVV reply, My reply wasn't to your post but to the previous post by tombesis. I'm not interested in what you have to say until you've played and actual game of CoC.

@VVV reply – does this regularly happen in your games? How does that one platoon get so badly damaged in one phase that it ceases to exist?

We do 2v2 and 3v3 games all the time and the only time something even remotely happens like this is when someone puts a squad out front, in the open. It's too good a target NOT to go after.

I'm also guessing this only happens near the end of your games when the platoons become more fully deployed?

This just seems like a solution looking for a problem?

I probably play more multiplayer big Coc than one on one games and have never had any particular issues. However virtually all the games I play have an umpire which really helps the flow of the game. My big worry with Tombesis' system is how much it would slow the game down, not just in terms of the on board action but also in regards to individual players, who may end up doing a lot of spectating.
In a regular game when one side performs its move the opponents are still interacting, they are making saves, watching over watch, keeping an eye on whether someone moves 3" or 7" etc etc. I have heard Big Rich say this is quite deliberate.
An extreme, but nonetheless highly plausible example might be for a player sat on the flank of the game essentially faced off against one other player, and all the activations are pulled out with him and his opponent being last. He will have absolutely nothing to do for 10, 15, maybe 20 minutes while half a dozen other players do their stuff, none of which can affect him.
With the system as it is, the enemy forces rattle through the turn (during which you do still have things to do) and on to his turn pretty quickly.

Neil, don't forget that VVVV has never played CoC. He doesn't therefore understand how difficult it would be for the situation he describes to arise.

Oh crikey, here we go again.

The only interesting thing I have found from these interminable Chain of Command discussions is the TFL's saying they have sold 22,000 hard copies of the rules. That must be a useful guide to how many as I haven't bought a set yet. So I sense the pool of Wargamers to be far bigger than previous guesstimates make it. Would be interesting to see what other manufacturer's data could be used to provide statistical analysis of the wargaming population.

Ok, you guys can go back to being rude to each other. Have fun

@VVV reply – does this regularly happen in your games? How does that one platoon get so badly damaged in one phase that it ceases to exist?

Basic tactics of course. Back when I used to play Warhammer 40K (using the same one side does everything, then the other) during play-testing for tournaments we worked out that if my army went first, I would always win.
Made easier in CoC of course because most weapons can reach the entire table.
On the subject of having nothing to do there is also a problem of having too much to do. With many players attacking one, you just cannot check everything that is happening. So our solution was to have the defending players who were not involved come over to help out the player who was under attack. They would supervise the attacking players rolls, apply damage and make any defender die rolls that were required. It also of course gave them something to do.

@Marc the plastics fan That 22,000 is just the hard copies they sell a lot of PDFs too.

Most players who commit themselves first in CofC tend to lose, unless they time things right. The timing of deploying troops to a jump off point is critical.

Don't forget that no forces are deployed on the table at the start of a game, so ‘going first' is not necessarily the advantage it is in other games, especially when firing.

As Neil says, if you push a single section forwards and in the open, within LOS of several enemy JOPs AND your opponent is then able to deploy several fire teams to engage them, then you deserve everything you get, don't you?

I would stress again that my house rules are absolutely not intended to substitute BigCoC. They are only another way to use CoC rules that I suggested and they could be worse than the original one.

@Keith Talent: I am sorry, but I cannot say how much the system is slowed down apply these house rules, because I did not play too much BigCoC to compare the two systems.

Tombesis, I think they're an interesting approach – one of the potential ‘problems' of several TFL rulesets is the time they can take to play a multi-player game, especially if you have a slow/thoughtful/indecisive player in the mix.

And 5 full infantry platoons, with 5 players, IS a very big game of CofC, whatever anyone else might say – I don't think we've used more than 3 platoons and a couple of tank troops in support in our games to date. So, if you played it to a successful conclusion in a reasonable time, and everyone had a good time, that's a result.

And, knowing the author, he's not so precious about house rules to demand you follow the ‘one true, chapter-approved codex': it's summed up in their slogan, ‘play the period, not the rules'. If your approach encourages more people to play CofC, without compromising the core command and control mechanics, then good on you!

One of the things that can slow down BigCoC is when one player gets multiple phases. This methods gets around that, but imposes a different delay by only having one player going at a time. I like the way you've handled multiple 6s (more likely to activate first next time), but the change of phase/turn mechanics has ramifications for all kinds of stuff (mortars, smoke, leader injuries, the tactical use of CoC Die Turn End, etc). I feel like regular turns is going to lose some of that interesting uncertainty.

I can see what you're going for, but like other commenters here I've never really seen BigCoC (and we did it with 4 players each running a full platoon) take too terribly long.

No problem tombesis, if it works for you and your group then stick with it, as I said most BigCoC games I am involved have an umpire ( usually me), and that helps a lot. In the rare event when a player is getting a bit swamped it's easy to pitch in and help out.
Also I've never gone beyond a company of infantry plus supports so if you are stretching it to nearly 2 companies maybe that's a way to do it, I'd still be concerned about thumb-twiddling though.
As for "if I went first, I always won"…..laughable in a game of CoC, and shows what a truly dull game 40k is.